Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to docs-plus/docs.plus. 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/docs-plus/docs.plus/main/.agents/skills/review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/docs-plus/docs.plusWrote 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/docs-plus/docs.plus/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/docs-plus/docs.plus/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/docs-plus/docs.plus/review/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/docs-plus/docs.plus/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/docs-plus/docs.plus/review.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 | $0.00095 | $0.01052 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00421 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00210 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
review 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:
- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?
Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point
Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. Don't be opinionated; pass it through. If they didn't specify one, ask: "Review against what — a branch, a commit, or main?" Don't proceed until you have it.
Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.
2. Identify the spec source
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
- Issue references in the commit messages (
#123,Closes #45, GitLab!67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow indocs/agents/issue-tracker.md. - A path the user passed as an argument.
- A PRD/spec file under
docs/,specs/, or.scratch/matching the branch name or feature. - If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
3. Identify the standards sources
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written. Common locations:
CLAUDE.md,AGENTS.mdCONTRIBUTING.mdCONTEXT.md,CONTEXT-MAP.md, per-contextCONTEXT.mdfilesdocs/adr/(architectural decisions are standards).editorconfig,eslint.config.*,biome.json,prettier.config.*,tsconfig.json(machine-enforced standards — note them but don't re-check what tooling already checks)- Any
STYLE.md,STANDARDS.md,STYLEGUIDE.md, or similar at the repo root or underdocs/
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 · 79 lines · 95 tokens per session scan A 5700f30d3f06
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository docs-plus/docs.plus (95 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 1,052 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-review
Critically review a Stencila agent and suggest improvements. Use when asked to review, audit, critique, evaluate, or improve an agent directory or AGENT.md file. Covers frontmatter validation, system instruction quality, configuration correctness, and adherence to the Agent schema.
Review Changes
Review or explain the code changes in a working tree or branch, grouped by severity, with file and line references and an architecture diagram of what the change does.
Code Review Excellence
Master code review best practices with constructive feedback patterns, quality assurance standards, review checklists, security considerations, and collaborative improvement techniques for high-quality software delivery.
board-comment-style
Write board comments the way a colleague does — lead with the finding, a few lines, no preamble or process narration. Use when about to call addtaskcomment or commentonpullrequest, or when deciding whether something deserves a comment at all.
ubiquitous-language
Use when evaluating the ubiquitous language in a codebase - produces a glossary of domain terms with references and commentary on inconsistencies, awkward names, or overlapping concepts.
docx
Read, create, and convert Microsoft Word (.docx) documents — extract text and tables, build reports from markdown/JSON, and export to PDF.