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 daniyalahmed21/skillforge --skill adversarial-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/daniyalahmed21/skillforgeWrote 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/daniyalahmed21/skillforge/adversarial-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/daniyalahmed21/skillforge/adversarial-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/daniyalahmed21/skillforge/adversarial-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/daniyalahmed21/skillforge/adversarial-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/daniyalahmed21/skillforge/adversarial-review.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 | $0.00030 | $0.00237 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00118 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00047 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00024 |
Grade A, and why
adversarial-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 9d 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
- Capture the change:
git diff --staged > /tmp/review.diff. If nothing is staged, stop and tell the user to stage the change first. - Spawn TWO independent
adversarial-reviewersubagents in parallel on that diff. Give each ONLY the diff path plus, if this is a refactor/port, the original source as ground truth. Do NOT pass either reviewer your own reasoning or the other reviewer's output. - Collect both bug lists and dedupe them into one list.
- Present the deduped list to the user and ask whether to apply fixes yourself
(main session) or delegate to the
fixersubagent. - After fixes are applied, if any fix touched logic, re-stage and loop back to step 1 on the new diff. Otherwise report done.
Rules: reviewers never edit; the fixer never re-reviews. Keep the roles separate.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 18 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 592a3df7828f
adversarial-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository daniyalahmed21/skillforge (6 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 237 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…
github-contributor
End-to-end playbook for shipping high-quality pull requests to open-source projects you don't maintain — discovery, CONTRIBUTING compliance, PR-size check, minimal-diff implementation, PR description with AI-assisted disclosure, conflict resolution, and post-submission maintainer interaction. Use whenever creating…
revdiff
Review diffs, files, and documents with inline annotations in a TUI overlay, or answer questions about revdiff usage, configuration, themes, and keybindings. Opens revdiff in agterm/tmux/zellij/herdr/kitty/wezterm/cmux/ghostty/iterm2/emacs-vterm, captures annotations, and addresses them. Works in git, hg, and jj repos…
write-pr
Reference standards for writing pull request titles and descriptions in the tldraw repository, plus the pre-flight comment sweep over the diff. Use as supporting guidance when another skill or workflow needs PR content standards, not as the user-facing create/update PR workflow.