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 darkroomengineering/cc-settings --skill review-batchgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/darkroomengineering/cc-settingsWrote 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/darkroomengineering/cc-settings/review-batch)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/darkroomengineering/cc-settings/review-batch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/darkroomengineering/cc-settings/review-batch/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/darkroomengineering/cc-settings/review-batch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/darkroomengineering/cc-settings/review-batch.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00049 | $0.01410 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00564 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00282 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00141 |
Grade A, and why
review-batch scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Batch
Context-switching between agents is the hidden tax: every cold reload costs minutes and you never restore the context perfectly. Batching reviews is far cheaper than check-one, leave, return-cold. This skill assembles the pending work into one sitting. Keep batches small enough that integration conflicts do not cost more than the context-switches saved.
Standalone Codex gathering
Do not require the consumer repo to provide a review-batch script, and do not
read a Claude swarm log. Gather git status --short, git diff --stat, git diff, git diff --cached --stat, and git diff --cached directly. Read the
current native agent state from the host's agent listing/status surface. Group
cards by diff area and by agent task only when that provenance is actually
available; otherwise label the producer unknown.
Procedure
-
Gather the picture in Claude:
bun "$HOME/.claude/src/scripts/review-batch.ts"Prints the review-queue depth (and age of the oldest unreviewed work), the working-tree diff stat, and recent agent activity from
~/.claude/swarm.log. -
Build a re-entry card per change — group the diff by file area / the agent that produced it. Each card:
### [change] — [files] - What: [one-line summary of the diff] - Why: [intent / which agent + task produced it] - Decide: [the 1-3 things that actually need your judgment — not the mechanical parts] - Proof: [`/proof-of-work` verdict — review-ready or not; screenshot for UI] [reading diff — protocol below; under ~40 changed lines skip the abridging and show the diff whole]Fill "Proof" from the worker's result when it has one: the closing
jsonblock of an implementer report, or theworker resultsectioncodex-run.ts execprints. The change is not review-ready unlessstatusiscompleted,verify_result.passedis true, and, for Codex, the section readsready: yes; quote eachblockersentry and eachnot ready:line on the card. A worker with no result block is unproven, not ready.
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.
- 8d ago Changed · +4 lines 9cb41a667e4b
- 14d ago Changed · -4 lines 4942246d3927
- 1mo ago Changed · -8 tokens per session 438716f78f54
- 2mo ago First seen · 71 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 838d6643ba79
review-batch is a skill published in the GitHub repository darkroomengineering/cc-settings (52 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 1,410 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
rams
Run accessibility and visual design review on components. Use when reviewing UI code for WCAG compliance and design issues.
deslop
Remove AI-generated code slop from the current branch. Use after writing code to clean up unnecessary comments, defensive checks, and inconsistent style.
simplify
Simplify and refine recently modified code for clarity and consistency. Use after writing code to improve readability without changing functionality.
migration-review
Review database migration files when a change adds or modifies paths under migrations/. Use it before merge to collect forward, rollback, locking, and data-safety evidence.
otto-pr-review-loop
Run Polly and OCR on a PR until all findings settle.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…