Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to deepgram/dglabs-deepclaw. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/deepgram/dglabs-deepclaw/main/.agents/skills/review-pr/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/deepgram/dglabs-deepclawWrote 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/deepgram/dglabs-deepclaw/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/deepgram/dglabs-deepclaw/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/deepgram/dglabs-deepclaw/review-pr/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/deepgram/dglabs-deepclaw/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/deepgram/dglabs-deepclaw/review-pr.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 | $0.00048 | $0.01668 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00667 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00334 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00167 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 1mo 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 — 229 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review PR
Overview
Perform a thorough review-only PR assessment and return a structured recommendation on readiness for /preparepr.
Inputs
- Ask for PR number or URL.
- If missing, always ask. Never auto-detect from conversation.
- If ambiguous, ask.
Safety
- Never push to
mainororigin/main, not during review, not ever. - Do not run
git pushat all during review. Treat review as read only. - Do not stop or kill the gateway. Do not run gateway stop commands. Do not kill processes on port 18792.
Execution Rule
- Execute the workflow. Do not stop after printing the TODO checklist.
- If delegating, require the delegate to run commands and capture outputs, not a plan.
Known Failure Modes
- If you see "fatal: not a git repository", you are in the wrong directory. Use
~/dev/openclawif available; otherwise ask user. - Do not stop after printing the checklist. That is not completion.
Writing Style for Output
- Write casual and direct.
- Avoid em dashes and en dashes. Use commas or separate sentences.
Completion Criteria
- Run the commands in the worktree and inspect the PR directly.
- Produce the structured review sections A through J.
- Save the full review to
.local/review.mdinside the worktree.
First: Create a TODO Checklist
Create a checklist of all review steps, print it, then continue and execute the commands.
Setup: Use a Worktree
Use an isolated worktree for all review work.
cd ~/dev/openclaw
# Sanity: confirm you are in the repo
git rev-parse --show-toplevel
WORKTREE_DIR=".worktrees/pr-<PR>"
git fetch origin main
# Reuse existing worktree if it exists, otherwise create new
if [ -d "$WORKTREE_DIR" ]; then
cd "$WORKTREE_DIR"
git checkout temp/pr-<PR> 2>/dev/null || git checkout -b temp/pr-<PR>
git fetch origin main
git reset --hard origin/main
else
git worktree add "$WORKTREE_DIR" -b temp/pr-<PR> origin/main
cd "$WORKTREE_DIR"
fi
# Create local scratch space that persists across /reviewpr to /preparepr to /mergepr
mkdir -p .local
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 229 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A ec5dc42b2acd
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository deepgram/dglabs-deepclaw (23 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,668 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…