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 agentmods add skills/danielvm-git/bigpowers/respond-reviewnpx skills add danielvm-git/bigpowers --skill respond-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/danielvm-git/bigpowersWhat 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 | $0.00042 | $0.00504 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00252 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
respond-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 3d 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.
What it actually says
Respond Review
HARD GATE — HARD GATE — Every reviewer comment must be addressed (fix, disagree + document reason, or ask clarification). Do NOT ignore feedback and merge.
Work through reviewer findings systematically. Don't apply changes blindly — categorize first, then decide, then fix, then verify.
Process
1. Read the full review report
Read every finding before acting on any of them. Get the full picture first.
2. Categorize findings
For each finding, assign a category:
| Category | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| must-fix | Correctness bug, security issue, test failure, CONVENTIONS.md violation | Fix before proceeding |
| should-fix | Code quality issue, naming, clarity — worth fixing but not blocking | Fix if time allows |
| consider | Architectural suggestion, alternative approach — may or may not apply | Discuss with user |
Create a numbered list of all findings with their categories.
3. Confirm with user (for consider-category items)
For each "consider" item, briefly describe the trade-off and ask: "Apply, skip, or discuss?"
4. Apply must-fix items first
Fix every must-fix item. For each one:
- Describe what you're changing and why
- Make the change
- Run the verify command if one exists for this area
5. Apply should-fix items
Apply should-fix items. If any are large enough to warrant their own commit, note them separately.
6. Run the full suite
After all changes are applied:
<full test command>
<typecheck command>
<lint command>
- All tests pass
- No type errors
- No lint violations
7. Report
Summarize what was applied and what was skipped:
Applied (must-fix): #1, #2, #3
Applied (should-fix): #4
Skipped (consider): #5 — agreed with user to defer
All tests pass.
Suggest next skill: commit-message.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 72 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A e7673bd61f3e
respond-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository danielvm-git/bigpowers (156 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 504 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
pm/competitive-analysis
竞品调研和分析方法，通过系统性分析竞品的功能、体验和策略，发现差异化机会.
macrothink
User-invoked read-only pass for checking whether the current direction is tunnel-visioned: strip the session's bait, fan out 2 to 5 same-model fresh reads, and report divergence first without treating convergence as proof.
nba
Read the live cycle state and return the single highest-leverage next best action, not a menu. Use when a project is between phases, the author asks what to do next, too many valid threads are open, or the work needs re-entry into frame, build, drive, re0-memo, hate, re0-work, or ship.
bmad-dev-story
Execute story implementation following a context filled story spec file. Use when the user says "dev this story [story file]" or "implement the next story in the sprint plan".
bmad-domain-research
Conduct domain and industry research. Use when the user says "lets create a research report on [domain or industry]".
harness-engineering
Use when an agent workflow needs production-like runtime controls for context, tools, permissions, observability, scheduling, evaluation, recovery, or maintenance.