Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to delorenj/mcp-server-trello. 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/delorenj/mcp-server-trello/main/.agent/skills/bmad-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/delorenj/mcp-server-trelloWrote 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/delorenj/mcp-server-trello/bmad-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/delorenj/mcp-server-trello/bmad-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/delorenj/mcp-server-trello/bmad-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/delorenj/mcp-server-trello/bmad-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/delorenj/mcp-server-trello/bmad-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 | $0.00083 | $0.01648 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00659 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00330 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00165 |
Grade A, and why
bmad-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 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- bmad-review — 98% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 50 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
BMad Review
Review content through lenses — each a distinct method and stance — and report findings in one canonical shape. Report what is real — never pad to look thorough. Each lens sets its own stance toward the content and toward zero findings: for most an empty result is valid; the adversarial lens treats it as suspicious; the editorial lenses hold content sacrosanct and critique only how it is organized and expressed.
The lens set is whatever {workflow.lenses} resolves to, not a fixed list — overrides add lenses and replace shipped ones. Never claim a capability from this file; read the resolved lenses and work from those.
Inputs
- content — what to review: a diff, branch, uncommitted changes, file, spec, story, or any document. Args:
[path]. - lenses (optional) — one or more lens codes or names, however the caller expresses them: a spoken request, or a directive of the form
skill:bmad-review lenses=<code>[,<code>...](the form bmm'sdoc_standardsuses). Default: every applicable lens (a full review). - also_consider (optional) — areas to keep in mind alongside each lens's normal analysis.
- pre-resolved customization (optional) —
[workflow]field values supplied by a forwarding caller. See Execution step 1.
Conventions
- Bare paths (e.g.
references/lens-edge-case-hunter.md) resolve from{skill-root}— this skill's installed directory, wherecustomize.tomllives.{project-root}resolves to the project working directory. {workflow.<name>}resolves to fields incustomize.toml's[workflow]table (overrides win per BMad merge rules).- In
style_guide,review_guidance, andpersistent_facts, a value prefixedfile:is a path or glob — load that file's contents. If afile:value cannot be read, name the failed file in the output header and continue: the shipped baseline forstyle_guide, the remaining entries otherwise.
Execution
- Resolve customization:
uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow. On failure, read{skill-root}/customize.tomldirectly and use defaults. Forwarded activation: if a caller invoked you with pre-resolved customization fields (e.g. thebmad-editorial-reviewshim), honor them verbatim for those named fields — they already carry the user's overrides — and resolve only the remaining fields from your owncustomize.toml. Then execute each{workflow.activation_steps_prepend}entry in order, hold{workflow.persistent_facts}as standing context for the session, and treat{workflow.review_guidance}entries as standing review directives for every lens. - Load the content. If it is empty or cannot be decoded as text: when the caller expects the raw findings JSON array (e.g. the legacy edge-case forwarder), return
[{"location":"N/A","trigger_condition":"Input empty or undecodable","guard_snippet":"Provide valid content to review","potential_consequence":"Review skipped — no analysis performed"}](nolensfield) and stop; otherwise say what's wrong and ask for reviewable content. Classify the content — diff, source file, function, or document — and whether it is code or docs; scope rules and lens applicability both depend on it. A document that defines behavior (spec, requirements, plan, story) isdocsthat a behavioral lens may still apply to; judge bywhen. - Select lenses from
{workflow.lenses}. A lens with an emptyinstructionis disabled. If the user or caller named lenses, run exactly those only —applies_toandwhendo not filter an explicit request. Otherwise run every enabled lens whoseapplies_tocovers the content class (anyalways covers) and whosewhenapplies. - Announce the plan in one line before running anything: the content class, the lenses about to run, and — when any lens has
afterset — that it runs on top of the named lens's findings. Skip the announcement entirely when the caller pinned an exact output contract (the legacy forwarders that demand raw JSON or one exact line) — their contract covers everything you emit, not just the findings block. Then execute each{workflow.activation_steps_append}entry in order. - Run the independent lenses — every selected lens without
after. Each sees the content andalso_consider, never another lens's findings. Follow each lens'sinstruction; the shipped lenses load their reference file just-in-time, so load only what runs. When subagents are available, spawn one per lens in parallel: give it the lensinstructionwith{skill-root}and paths resolved absolute, the content or where to read it, anyalso_considerareas, the standing review directives, and the constraint "Return ONLY your findings — no other output." Otherwise run the lenses sequentially yourself, completing one before starting the next. - Run the dependent lenses — every selected lens with
after, once the lens it names has completed, passing that lens's findings in. A lens whoseaftertarget was not selected or produced nothing still runs, with no prior findings. Dependent lenses that name different targets are independent of each other and may run in parallel. - Assemble and present per Output below. Keep every lens's findings — overlap between lenses is signal, not duplication; note it in the markdown report rather than deduping. Execute
{workflow.on_complete}if set.
What ships with it
10 files 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.
- customize.toml 5.8 KB
- references/editorial-common.md 5.7 KB
- references/lens-adversarial.md 1.3 KB
- references/lens-edge-case-hunter.md 3.8 KB
- references/lens-prose.md 1.3 KB
- references/lens-structure.md 1.5 KB
- references/lens-verification-gap.md 8.2 KB
- references/structure-models.md 1.9 KB
- scripts/tests/test_word_metrics.py 1.5 KB runs code
- scripts/word_metrics.py 3.4 KB runs code
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 · 50 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A bc46cdf66b37
bmad-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository delorenj/mcp-server-trello (446 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 1,648 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-16.
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"…
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…
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…