Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add Cratis/AI --skill cratis-engineering-review-roundsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Cratis/AIWrote 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/cratis/ai/cratis-engineering-review-rounds)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cratis/ai/cratis-engineering-review-rounds"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cratis/ai/cratis-engineering-review-rounds/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/cratis/ai/cratis-engineering-review-rounds"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cratis/ai/cratis-engineering-review-rounds.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>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 | $0.00115 | $0.01704 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00046 | $0.00682 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00341 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
cratis-engineering-review-rounds scanned grade A with 0 findings 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 today.
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.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 143 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review the change, then its corrections
Read review-reports.md before choosing reviewers
or reporting findings. Its report shape, verdicts, scope limits, and reviewer
independence apply to every round. This skill schedules reviews; it does not
replace the criteria in cratis-code-review or specialist review skills.
Blocking means a must-fix finding in Blockers, yielding Changes requested. Advisory means a non-blocking finding in Suggestions. An advisory preference is not a merge gate. Missing required evidence yields Incomplete, not approval; retain that gap until it is resolved.
Budget the review
- Run one quick round per delivery. A second is warranted only after a blocker, not to seek reassurance or eliminate suggestions.
- Run one whole-change review per PR on the assembled change. Quick delivery rounds do not replace it. Start whole-change inspection in parallel with the gate when possible, but keep it provisional: required gates must pass before an approval report is finalized. Do not launch duplicate gates for review.
- Use ordinary depth by default. Deep review needs one named risk class: security, algorithmic, concurrency, or cross-cutting, plus a one-line justification tied to the changed behavior. Data-loss exposure or irreversible migrations may justify cross-cutting review; merely wanting extra confidence does not.
- Prove migrations and deployment-sensitive behavior by running the migration on representative local data and exercising the relevant old/new behavior. Deeper inspection is not execution evidence. Follow repository test policy.
First whole-change round
- Fix the target scope and committed base and head SHAs. Name changed surfaces,
expected behavior, required checks, and any specific risk before starting.
Use
git rev-parse <base>andgit rev-parse HEADto resolve full SHAs. - Apply reviewer independence from
review-reports.md: use a different provider family where selectable. Where it is not selectable, declaresingle-providerin the report header and on the Not examined line. A provider/tool error makes the review Incomplete; fall back once as that rule directs, rather than manufacturing a verdict. - Review the whole diff using the applicable criteria and real gate results.
Record round 1 with its base/head and retain the complete report unchanged.
Keep local review records under
.ai-work/; public reviewer notes follow pull-requests.md, never the release note. - Fix confirmed Blockers together. Dismiss a candidate only with evidence and a reason, not by silently deleting it. Correct required evidence gaps before seeking approval. Cheap advisory fixes may join this correction pass.
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- today Changed · +22 lines f9f24d55a508
- yesterday First seen · 121 lines · 115 tokens per session scan A 77ab8a7f6568
cratis-engineering-review-rounds is a skill published in the GitHub repository Cratis/AI (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 115 tokens to every session and 1,704 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-10-25.
Other skills, from other repositories
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
next-cache-components-optimizer
Optimize the meaningful UI available immediately from a Next.js route on an initial load (hard navigation) or named client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route and entry point at a time; the shipped test then guards…