mcp-server-trello: Skill for Claude Code

.agent/skills/bmad-review/SKILL.md

bmad-review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from delorenj/mcp-server-trello. It costs 83 tokens per session (1,648 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A review tool that examines a code change, document, specification, or other work through selected viewpoints, such as edge cases, missing checks, structure, or prose. It combines the results into a consistent report.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review diffs, branches, uncommitted changes, files, specifications, stories, and other documents. It is also useful for checking edge cases, verification gaps, organization, and wording.
Why use it?
It helps find real problems and gaps without padding the review with unsupported concerns. You can review all applicable viewpoints or choose specific ones.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one. Also seen: mentions subagents.

This is delorenj/mcp-server-trello's own configuration. It tells Claude Code and Codex how to work on mcp-server-trello itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything mcp-server-trello configures →

Reuse

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.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/delorenj/mcp-server-trello/main/.agent/skills/bmad-review/SKILL.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/delorenj/mcp-server-trello

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for bmad-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/delorenj/mcp-server-trello/bmad-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/delorenj/mcp-server-trello/bmad-review)
Your own site
<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.

agentmods 80×15 button for bmad-review

Your own site · 80×15
<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>
Per session 83 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,648 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce 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

Measured 1mo ago against content hash bc46cdf66b37, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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.

The scan reads SKILL.md. This mod also ships 2 executable files (scripts/tests/test_word_metrics.py, scripts/word_metrics.py), listed below but not scanned — reading those needs a real analyzer, not pattern matching.

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.

Origin

Copies of this mod

1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:

.agent/skills/bmad-review/SKILL.md · 50 lines

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's doc_standards uses). 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, where customize.toml lives. {project-root} resolves to the project working directory.
  • {workflow.<name>} resolves to fields in customize.toml's [workflow] table (overrides win per BMad merge rules).
  • In style_guide, review_guidance, and persistent_facts, a value prefixed file: is a path or glob — load that file's contents. If a file: value cannot be read, name the failed file in the output header and continue: the shipped baseline for style_guide, the remaining entries otherwise.

Execution

  1. Resolve customization: uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow. On failure, read {skill-root}/customize.toml directly and use defaults. Forwarded activation: if a caller invoked you with pre-resolved customization fields (e.g. the bmad-editorial-review shim), honor them verbatim for those named fields — they already carry the user's overrides — and resolve only the remaining fields from your own customize.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.
  2. 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"}] (no lens field) 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) is docs that a behavioral lens may still apply to; judge by when.
  3. Select lenses from {workflow.lenses}. A lens with an empty instruction is disabled. If the user or caller named lenses, run exactly those only — applies_to and when do not filter an explicit request. Otherwise run every enabled lens whose applies_to covers the content class (any always covers) and whose when applies.
  4. Announce the plan in one line before running anything: the content class, the lenses about to run, and — when any lens has after set — 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.
  5. Run the independent lenses — every selected lens without after. Each sees the content and also_consider, never another lens's findings. Follow each lens's instruction; 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 lens instruction with {skill-root} and paths resolved absolute, the content or where to read it, any also_consider areas, 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.
  6. Run the dependent lenses — every selected lens with after, once the lens it names has completed, passing that lens's findings in. A lens whose after target 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.
  7. 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.

Read the full file on GitHub · 50 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 50 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A bc46cdf66b37

Subscribe to this mod's changes

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.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

autoreview

Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.

openclaw/clawhub · 17 tokens

omh-code-review

This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).

rlaope/oh-my-hermes · 48 tokens

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"…

umputun/revdiff · 84 tokens

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…

dzhng/skills · 162 tokens

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…

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills · 65 tokens

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…

LilMGenius/paperthin · 70 tokens