Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to dfradehubs/agentgram. 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/dfradehubs/agentgram/main/.claude/skills/review-docs/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dfradehubs/agentgramWrote 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/dfradehubs/agentgram/review-docs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dfradehubs/agentgram/review-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dfradehubs/agentgram/review-docs/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/dfradehubs/agentgram/review-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dfradehubs/agentgram/review-docs.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 | $0.00032 | $0.00883 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00353 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00177 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
review-docs 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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Act as a Technical Writer + Senior Engineer + QA. Your goal is to review and clean Agentgram documentation specified in $ARGUMENTS (or current context if no arguments) to make it clear, correct, consistent, and maintainable.
Project context
- Doc structure:
CLAUDE.md(root),api/CLAUDE.md,web/CLAUDE.md,api/docs/SECURITY.md - API: Go multiplexer, AG-UI SSE protocol, Keycloak JWT auth, Redis + PostgreSQL sessions
- Web: Next.js 16, SSE streaming, parallel multi-agent support. UI text in Spanish (es).
- Commands:
make api,make web,make docker-up,make image-all,make test - Config: YAML with
${ENV:VAR}syntax for secrets - Deployment: Kubernetes, images to
ghcr.io/dfradehubs/
Deliver in this format
A) SUMMARY
- Status: ✅ Ready / ⚠️ Requires adjustments / ❌ Inconsistent or dangerous
- Top 5 issues (prioritized)
- Minimum actions to reach "✅ Ready"
B) FINDINGS (prioritized) For each finding include:
- Severity: P0 (blocking) / P1 / P2 / P3
- Evidence: file:section (or exact heading)
- Problem: what's confusing or wrong
- Proposed fix: suggested text or concrete restructuring (in Markdown)
C) REWRITE PROPOSAL (if applicable)
- Proposed index (TOC) or recommended structure
- Sections to merge/delete/move
- List of normalized "names/terminology"
Review criteria
- Accuracy and currency
- Detect obsolete content: old paths (
backend/,frontend/), deprecated commands, wrong port numbers. - Flag contradictions between
CLAUDE.md(root),api/CLAUDE.md,web/CLAUDE.md, andapi/docs/SECURITY.md. - Verify AG-UI event types and SSE format match actual implementation.
- Check Makefile targets match documented commands.
- Clarity and readability
- Long sentences, ambiguities, logical jumps.
- Rewrite so a new developer understands the "what", "why", and "how".
- Add minimum context: prerequisites, limits, gotchas.
- Editorial and technical consistency
- Unify terminology: "API" vs "backend", "Web" vs "frontend", "agent" vs "service".
- Normalize command examples (shell fenced, consistent prompt).
- Maintain convention: "imperative" for steps ("Execute...", "Verify...").
- Consistent naming:
agentgram-api,agentgram-webfor images/K8s resources.
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 · 77 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 407ac9e9d7f4
review-docs is a skill published in the GitHub repository dfradehubs/agentgram (22 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 883 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
merge-prs
Consume analyzed PR plans, implement authorized fixes with contributor credit, validate exact candidates, and merge only owner-selected and explicitly authorized groups through the shared gates. Requires prior review evidence; unknown or failing required checks remain HOLD.
merge-batch
Prepare and merge an owner-selected PR batch with contributor credit and exact-candidate admission. Use for a pasted PR list; combined focused validation is diagnostic, and every actual landing still requires its applicable checks and authorization.
green-prs
Inspect and prepare the selected PR queue against its exact current base, repair authorized defects with contributor credit, and report full versus partial validation. Use for maintainer pre-greening; merging requires separate owner authorization and the shared merge gates.
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…
pr-review
Review a GitHub pull request using multiple expert personas. Takes a PR URL as input, analyzes the changes, and generates comprehensive review feedback from different perspectives (Merge Specialist, Frontend, Backend, Security, DevOps, AI/Agent, SRE, Chief Architect).
archestra-pr-hygiene
Use when opening or updating an Archestra pull request to write an accurate conventional title and a practical, evidence-based description.