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/dannote/dot-pi/pr-reviewnpx skills add dannote/dot-pi --skill pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dannote/dot-piWrote 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/dannote/dot-pi/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dannote/dot-pi/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dannote/dot-pi/pr-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 | $0.00079 | $0.01746 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00873 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00349 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00175 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 2d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- web-content-audit — 86% identical, 272 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pull Request Review
Review before mutating. Read the repository's AGENTS.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, PR template, and relevant bot instructions before judging the change. Treat those files as the project's source of truth; do not import conventions from another repository.
Choose the workflow
| Context | Role | Output |
|---|---|---|
| First review | Reviewer | Evidence-based findings and one recommendation |
| Re-review after feedback | Follow-up reviewer | Status of each requested change plus regression findings |
| Merged or closed PR | Auditor | Retrospective findings and any separate follow-up action |
| CodeRabbit, Copilot, or contributor review | Maintainer | Independently verified classifications |
| CI and checks | Reviewer | Attributed pass, PR failure, infrastructure failure, flake, skip, or unknown |
| Preparing comments | Maintainer reviewer | Exact concise inline-comment draft |
| Approved fix or merge | Maintainer/implementer | Scoped action and validation result |
- First review: inspect the final diff, history, discussion, checks, and relevant source/tests.
- Re-review: compare the reviewed commit SHA with the current head before classifying anything. Build the requested-change list from maintainer reviews, inline threads, author responses, and later commits. Mark each item as maintainer-requested, external suggestion, or newly discovered, then classify it as addressed, partial, unresolved, or obsolete from the current diff. If no commits or relevant changes followed the review, say so directly; do not infer fixes from the PR body or commit message.
- Merged or closed PR: review retrospectively. Do not recommend merging, approving, or requesting changes; identify only lessons or a separate follow-up warranted by current code.
- External review: verify each CodeRabbit, Copilot, or contributor finding against the current head, current PR body, current conversation, and repository policy; classify it as valid, invalid, stale, duplicate, or low-value. A bot threshold is not a project requirement unless repository guidance or CI makes it one; do not add comments or code solely to satisfy an unsupported metric.
- CI and checks: inspect failing logs, not only check summaries. Attribute each relevant result as passing, failing because of the PR, infrastructure failure, flaky, cancelled/blocked, skipped/not applicable, or unverified. Report the actual checks; do not inflate the count with service statuses or infer checks that are not present.
- Draft comments: map valid findings to the smallest useful line range, prefer inline comments, remove duplicates, and show the exact draft.
- Fix or merge: only act after the user explicitly chooses that action. Use
vibe-mergewhen reimplementing selected ideas instead of merging a PR wholesale.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 97 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A 53a15d0117cb
pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository dannote/dot-pi (51 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 1,746 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
a0-development
Development guide for extending Agent Zero from current source and DOX. Use for framework architecture, tools, extensions, API/WebUI handlers, agent profiles, prompts, skills, projects, runtime boundaries, and contribution workflow. Load the focused reference files before giving implementation guidance.
temporal-developer
Develop, debug, and manage Temporal applications across Python, TypeScript, Go, Java, .NET, Ruby, and Rust. Use when the user is building workflows, activities, or workers with a Temporal SDK, debugging issues like non-determinism errors, stuck workflows, or activity retries, using Temporal CLI, Temporal Server, or…
skill-author
Teach an author how to integrate the CAFleet-orchestrated team pattern into a new skill they are writing. Auto-load when the author intends to create a new CAFleet-orchestrated skill, write a skill that spawns cafleet members, add a Director/Member team skill, design a multi-agent broker-coordinated skill, build a…
clean-docs
Clean up the repository's docs, comments, rules, and tests as a CAFleet team of disjoint-slice scanner members gated by a reviewer — exactly one workflow per run. Use the residue workflow when the user asks to clean up historical narration or historical residue, remove deprecation notes / "this replaces X" / "renamed…
cafleet
Interact with the CAFleet message broker and supervise CAFleet member teams. Use when an agent needs to register as a member, send/receive messages, poll inbox, acknowledge messages, or discover other members; or when a Director is about to spawn, monitor, health-check, or recover a stalled team of CAFleet members…
anycap-human-interaction
Collect structured visual feedback from humans using AnyCap's annotation tool, or create and iterate on diagrams using the interactive whiteboard (Excalidraw). Covers image annotation, URL/web page review with screen recording, video review, audio feedback, and collaborative diagramming with Mermaid input. Use when…