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-toolsgit 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-tools)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/diagrid-labs/dapr-skills/review-agent-tools"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/diagrid-labs/dapr-skills/review-agent-tools/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-tools"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/diagrid-labs/dapr-skills/review-agent-tools.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 | $0.00056 | $0.00901 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00451 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00180 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
review-agent-tools 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 12d 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 — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Agents — Tools
Overview
Scans agent tool definitions for idempotency issues, missing docstrings / descriptions, unbounded return payloads, swallowed exceptions, and convention violations. Applies to both supported paths: the Python dapr-agents SDK and diagrid[<extra>] wrappers, and .NET Microsoft Agent Framework agents running on Dapr Workflow. "Dapr Agents" is the Python framework specifically — it has no .NET SDK. Read-only: this skill never modifies source files. Memory configuration is covered by review-agent-memory; multi-agent orchestration by review-agent-orchestration; observability by review-agent-observability.
Execution Order
You MUST follow these phases in strict order. Do not load files outside the agreed scope, and do not write or edit any files.
- Resolve scope — Read
../shared/review-scope-prompt.mdand follow it to setscope_root. - Detect target — Read
../shared/review-detect-target-agent.mdand follow it to producelanguage,flavor, andtool_files. Iftool_filesis empty, emit a single warning finding (no tool files found) and stop. - Load checklist — Based on
language, read exactly one of:python→../shared/review-agent-tools-python.mddotnet→../shared/review-agent-tools-dotnet.md
- Scan — For each tool file in scope, apply every rule from the loaded checklist using
GrepandRead. For each match, capturefile:line, the rule id, and a short evidence snippet. Confirm the match is inside a tool body (the function decorated with@tool/ wrapped withAIFunctionFactory.Create) before promoting it from "Please verify" to a graded severity. - Report — Format every finding using the canonical template from
../shared/review-report-format.md. Group by severity, then rule id, then file path. - Show final message — Your last output is the report. Do not append a summary, follow-up question, or next-action prompt other than the
## Next stepsblock defined by the report format.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 57 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 3b8ae539397c
review-agent-tools is a skill published in the GitHub repository diagrid-labs/dapr-skills (12 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 901 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
pull-feedback
Use when the user has authored a GitHub pull request and wants to work through review feedback on it. Triggers on phrases like "pull down the review on.
inbox
Use when checking what PRs are waiting for your review, or when starting your day to see what needs attention.
checking-for-undisclosed-context
Use when reviewing or drafting a doc, PR/issue description, design doc, code-review prompt, or subagent persona that's supposed to stand on its own, to check whether it leans on vocabulary, acronyms, or structure pulled from other documentation or conversation the reader hasn't seen. Read it cold, as the specific…
code-auditing
A code review and auditing guide with several modes for finding problems, simplifying code, or combining multiple review viewpoints. It includes instructions written partly in Chinese.
code-review-workflow
A step-by-step process for reviewing a pull request or merge request, which is a proposed code change awaiting review. It combines file and change summaries, automated checks, and architecture review.
code-review
A structured code-review guide that checks code for correctness, security, edge cases, concurrency problems, tests, and maintainability.