Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to CorridorTech/PoseCap. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CorridorTech/PoseCap/main/.agents/skills/ad-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CorridorTech/PoseCapWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/corridortech/posecap/ad-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/corridortech/posecap/ad-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/corridortech/posecap/ad-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/corridortech/posecap/ad-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/corridortech/posecap/ad-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Agent Snooping · line 232 Skill reads from agent configuration directories (.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/). These directories may contain API keys, personal settings, and other credentials that the skill has no legitimate need to access.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that access agent configuration directories (.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/). If configuration values are needed, pass them explicitly as parameters or environment variabl
- medium Rogue Agent · line 20 Skill establishes unauthorized persistence across sessions via cron jobs, startup scripts, or state files. Session persistence allows an attacker to maintain access beyond the current interaction.Fix: Remove any persistence mechanisms (cron jobs, startup scripts, state files). Skills should not maintain state across sessions without explicit user consent.
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00309 | $0.04262 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00124 | $0.01705 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00062 | $0.00852 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00426 |
Grade B, and why
ad-review scanned grade B with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Reads agent configuration directoriesmediumAgent snooping
.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/ hold keys, settings and other credentials a mod has no legitimate need for.
NOTE: the [agents] block in ~/.codex/config.toml is for global subagent How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 257 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Mechanical shape:
THIS SESSION:
1. Scope the review (which range / PR / commit?).
2. Read Standards sources (AGENTS.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, GUIDELINES.md, CONTEXT.md, accepted ADRs).
3. Read Spec source (task Acceptance Criteria → spec → PRD → issue body).
4. Write the assembled context to .agentic/reviews/<ISO>-<scope>.md (audit trail).
5. Perform the review in this session. Output findings under two headings:
## Standards Findings (bugs, coupling, edge cases, doc violations)
## Spec Findings (missing requirements, scope creep, wrong impl vs quoted spec line)
6. End with a one-line aggregate (counts per axis + worst finding).
The two-axis split is structural rigor — same reviewer, but findings must be classified before mixing. A change that passes Spec can still fail Standards (and vice versa); reporting axes separately prevents one from masking the other.
<background_information>
Implements WORKFLOW §10 (Reviewer With Adversarial Discipline). On Claude Code, §10 is delivered via two parallel Task subagent calls with fresh context. On Codex, the skill defaults to structural axis separation inside a single review pass and ships a bundled fresh-context-reviewer TOML for explicit user-spawned escalation. The inline reviewer cannot rationalize a Spec pass as covering Standards (or vice versa) because the output schema forces both lists to be produced separately.
The two-axis dichotomy is borrowed from mattpocock/skills/review and bound to this kit's six-layer artifact stack (Constitution → Domain → Product → Spec → Plan/Decisions → Code).
For Codex users who want true fresh-context review (the §10 ideal), spawn the bundled subagent manually after the skill writes the audit-trail file — see the "Optional escalation" block at the bottom of the instructions. </background_information>
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2mo ago First seen · 257 lines · 309 tokens per session scan B eda772621e89
ad-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository CorridorTech/PoseCap (265 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 309 tokens to every session and 4,262 once invoked, about $0.0012 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (reads agent configuration directories). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…