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 diagrid-labs/dapr-skills --skill review-agent-orchestrationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/diagrid-labs/dapr-skillsWrote 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/diagrid-labs/dapr-skills/review-agent-orchestration)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/diagrid-labs/dapr-skills/review-agent-orchestration"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/diagrid-labs/dapr-skills/review-agent-orchestration/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/diagrid-labs/dapr-skills/review-agent-orchestration"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/diagrid-labs/dapr-skills/review-agent-orchestration.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00892 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00357 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00178 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
review-agent-orchestration 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 9d 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 — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Agents — Orchestration
Overview
Scans multi-agent projects (coordinator + specialists) for pub/sub topic loops and naming, loop safety (max_iterations / max_steps), agent-registry wiring (including native coordinators with wrapper specialists), wrapper pub/sub wiring, port collisions in dapr.yaml, and cross-agent shared-state hazards. Read-only. Single-agent projects get the nothing-to-review result, except Python diagrid wrapper projects whose single-agent classification is uncertain, which get one DAG-ORCH-010 "Please verify" finding.
Execution Order
You MUST follow these phases in strict order.
- Resolve scope — Read
../dapr-shared/review-scope-prompt.mdand follow it to setscope_root. - Detect target — Read
../dapr-shared/review-detect-target-agent.md. Iftopology == single-agent:topology_unverified == true→ the report's only finding isDAG-ORCH-010under## Please verify(see the Python checklist); stop.- otherwise → emit the report with the generic nothing-to-review line from
../dapr-shared/review-report-format.md(reason: single-agent project, orchestration rules do not apply; no rule id); stop.
- Load checklist — Based on
language, read exactly one of: - Scan — Apply every rule. Port-collision rules require parsing
dapr.yaml; topic-routing rules require grepping forAgentPubSubConfig(/agent_topic=/broadcast_topic=(native Python),pubsub_name=/publish_topic=/subscribe_topic=(wrapper Python), orDaprClient.PublishEventAsync((.NET); registry and dispatch rules fororchestration_mode=,AgentRegistryConfig(/registry_config=andAsyncSubAgent(; loop-bound rules forAgentExecutionConfig(/max_iterations=/max_steps=. In a Pythonmixedproject, apply each rule to each file by that file's flavor. - Report — Format findings using
../dapr-shared/review-report-format.md. - Show final message — Emit the report from step 5 with a
## Next stepsblock.
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.
- 9d ago Changed · -17 tokens per session feff10dbd78d
- 13d ago Changed 6d1d45fc52ae
- 14d ago Changed · +2 lines b9ebb4cf8838
- 1mo ago First seen · 51 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A cd35688b4d39
review-agent-orchestration is a skill published in the GitHub repository diagrid-labs/dapr-skills (13 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 892 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
code-review
A structured code-review guide that checks code for correctness, security, edge cases, concurrency problems, tests, and maintainability.
criticism-self-criticism
A structured review method for examining completed work, criticism, and repeated mistakes. It focuses on specific evidence, causes, effects, and practical improvements.
code-review-checklist
Genera un checklist de revisión de código personalizado para cualquier pull request basado en el lenguaje, tipo de cambio y nivel de riesgo. Úsalo cuando te pidan revisar código, verificar un PR, revisar un pull request o generar un checklist de revisión de código. Produce un checklist enfocado con verificaciones…
resolve-pr-comments
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using the rationale recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to "resolve PR comments", "fix review comments", "address…
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
review-code
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps and low-value tests by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the…