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 dentiny/kon --skill review-prgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dentiny/konWrote 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/dentiny/kon/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dentiny/kon/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dentiny/kon/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/dentiny/kon/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dentiny/kon/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 | $0.00046 | $0.00846 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00338 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00169 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00085 |
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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review PR (holistic)
Owner: 📝 Mio (review-pr mode)
Consumers: /kon:review-pr
Core principles (always): follow skills/core-principles — first principles (don't hide the issue); simplest, most concise correct solution.
Scope
Review the whole PR package, not just the diff:
| Input | Review |
|---|---|
| Code diff | Logic, correctness, edge cases (subset of strict-review — see below) |
| PR title & body | Accuracy vs diff, missing test plan, misleading claims |
| Existing PR review comments | What reviewers asked for; what's addressed vs still open |
| Linked GitHub issue(s) | Requirements from issue body/comments; whether PR satisfies them |
Ask if PR number/URL is missing when user clearly means an open GitHub PR — follow skills/ask-dont-guess.
Orchestrator: gather context (before spawning Mio)
GitHub PR (preferred when user gives number or URL)
gh pr view <N> --json title,body,author,comments,reviews,reviewDecision,files,closingIssuesReferences
gh pr diff <N>
Parse Fixes #123 / Closes #456 / Relates to org/repo#789 from body if not in closingIssuesReferences. For each linked issue:
gh issue view <N> --json title,body,state,labels,comments
Include all review comments and inline review threads in the prompt (truncate only with a note listing omitted IDs).
Local only (no PR number)
git diff HEAD # default
git diff --cached # when --staged
gh pr view --json title,body,comments,reviews,files,closingIssuesReferences 2>/dev/null || true
If gh pr view succeeds for the current branch, treat it like a GitHub PR and include body + comments + linked issues.
Pass gathered text to Mio as PR_CONTEXT in the task prompt. Set MODE: review-pr.
Code review bar
Apply the 7-item golden checklist from skills/strict-review to the diff only — mark [x]/[ ] under ## Code review. Default verdict starts BLOCKED until evidence supports otherwise.
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 · 97 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 6b42cc189e89
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository dentiny/kon (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 846 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 2026-08-31.
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"…
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…
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…
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…