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 DNYoussef/context-cascade --skill when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-reviegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DNYoussef/context-cascadeWrote 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/dnyoussef/context-cascade/when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-revie)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dnyoussef/context-cascade/when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-revie"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dnyoussef/context-cascade/when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-revie.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00080 | $0.11505 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.05752 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.02301 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01150 |
Grade A, and why
when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-revie 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 4d 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 — 1,312 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Orchestration Workflow
Comprehensive code review workflow orchestrating 12-15 specialized reviewers across automated checks, parallel expert reviews, integration analysis, and final approval recommendation. Designed for thorough quality validation across security, performance, architecture, testing, and documentation dimensions in a systematic 4-hour process.
LIBRARY-FIRST PROTOCOL (MANDATORY)
Before writing ANY code, you MUST check:
Step 1: Library Catalog
- Location:
.claude/library/catalog.json - If match >70%: REUSE or ADAPT
Step 2: Patterns Guide
- Location:
.claude/docs/inventories/LIBRARY-PATTERNS-GUIDE.md - If pattern exists: FOLLOW documented approach
Step 3: Existing Projects
- Location:
D:\Projects\* - If found: EXTRACT and adapt
Decision Matrix
| Match | Action |
|---|---|
| Library >90% | REUSE directly |
| Library 70-90% | ADAPT minimally |
| Pattern exists | FOLLOW pattern |
| In project | EXTRACT |
| No match | BUILD (add to library after) |
Overview
This SOP implements a multi-dimensional code review process using star topology coordination where a central PR manager orchestrates specialized reviewers operating in parallel. The workflow emphasizes both thoroughness and efficiency by running automated checks first (gate 1), then parallelizing specialized human-centric reviews, followed by integration impact analysis, and finally synthesizing all findings into actionable recommendations.
The star pattern enables each specialist to focus deeply on their domain while the coordinator ensures comprehensive coverage and prevents conflicting feedback. Memory coordination allows reviewers to reference findings from other specialists, creating a holistic review experience.
Trigger Conditions
Use this workflow when:
- Reviewing pull requests requiring comprehensive quality validation
- Changes span multiple quality dimensions (code, security, performance, architecture)
- Need systematic review from multiple specialist perspectives
- PR introduces significant functionality or architectural changes
- Merge decision requires evidence-based go/no-go recommendation
- Team wants consistent, repeatable review process
- Code review SLA is within 4 hours (business hours)
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 1,312 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A b639401741b7
when-reviewing-pull-request-orchestrate-comprehensive-code-revie is a skill published in the GitHub repository DNYoussef/context-cascade (32 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 11,505 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…