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 CurtisThe/three-pillars-plugin --skill tp-phase-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CurtisThe/three-pillars-pluginWrote 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/curtisthe/three-pillars-plugin/tp-phase-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/curtisthe/three-pillars-plugin/tp-phase-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/curtisthe/three-pillars-plugin/tp-phase-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00027 | $0.00831 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00415 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00166 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00083 |
Grade A, and why
tp-phase-review 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 7d 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.
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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase Review
Review the implementation against the design and plan artifacts.
Argument: {design-name} (required), optionally followed by a phase number to review only that phase.
Prerequisites
three-pillars-docs/tp-designs/{design-name}/plan.mdmust exist with at least some tasks marked as Done.
Steps
-
Run first-run preflight per skills/_shared/first-run.md.
-
Run collaboration preflight per
skills/_shared/collaboration.mdwithphase: "review". This verifies the branch and refreshes the lock soreview.mdis written by the rightful owner. Honor--force-takeoverif passed. -
Read all design artifacts:
design.md,detailed-design.md,plan.mdfrom the design directory. -
For each completed task in plan.md:
- Read the implementation file and test file.
- Verify the test exists and covers what the plan specified.
- Check the implementation matches the interfaces defined in detailed-design.md.
- Flag deviations — not all deviations are bad, but they should be noted.
-
Run the full test suite for all affected files. Discover the test command from the project config (CLAUDE.md, Makefile, package.json, pyproject.toml, etc.):
{project-test-command} 2>&1 | tee "$(mktemp /tmp/test_output.XXXXXX.log)" -
Check for gaps:
- Behaviors in design.md that aren't covered by any task.
- Interfaces in detailed-design.md that aren't implemented.
- Edge cases mentioned in the test strategy that don't have tests.
-
Write
three-pillars-docs/tp-designs/{design-name}/review.md:
# <Design Name> — Review
## Summary
<2-3 sentences: overall status, confidence level>
## Completed
| Task | Tests | Implementation | Notes |
|------|-------|----------------|-------|
| 1.1 | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 1.2 | ✓ | ~ | Deviates from interface spec: ... |
## Gaps
- <behavior or edge case not covered>
## Deviations
- <intentional or accidental departures from the design>
## Test Results
<paste test output summary>
## Recommendations
- <what to do about gaps/deviations — add tasks, update design, or accept>
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 75 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 7015bb956df0
tp-phase-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository CurtisThe/three-pillars-plugin (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 831 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…