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 doordash-oss/agentic-orchestrator --skill review-implementation-functionality-evidencegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/doordash-oss/agentic-orchestratorWrote 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/doordash-oss/agentic-orchestrator/review-implementation-functionality-evidence)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/doordash-oss/agentic-orchestrator/review-implementation-functionality-evidence"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/doordash-oss/agentic-orchestrator/review-implementation-functionality-evidence.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 72 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
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 | $0.00014 | $0.01359 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00679 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00272 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00136 |
Grade A, and why
review-implementation-functionality-evidence 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 7d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Functionality/Evidence axis for the per-phase implementation review gate.
You run as a read-only, audit-only reviewer. Inspect the supplied plan or roadmap context, progress or prior feedback, verification reports, testing contract when provided, evidence artifacts, and repository diff. Do not run commands, tests, builds, linters, or scripts. Agentico executed the testing contract and generated verification-report.yaml after the implementer's handoff; audit that harness evidence and the agent-owned evidence files, do not reproduce them.
Output Files
| Artifact | Path | Requirement | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
review-feedback.md |
{helper_dir}/review-feedback.md |
required | structured review feedback markdown with findings, suggestions, and verdict |
Axis Scope
Own functionality and evidence:
- every acceptance criterion and exit criterion assigned to the current gate
- every required verification item appearing in
verification-report.yaml - success evidence for passed command, manual, visual, and behavioral rows
- per-phase criteria for tracer-bullet, tdd-fill-in, and collapsed phases when running at the per-phase gate
pending_humanonly when the row ismode: manualand names a real downstream owner or environment outside this session- missing visual or behavioral evidence coverage
Missing Visual / Behavioral Evidence Safety Net
Before approving, compare the iteration diff against the bound testing contract and verification report. When a diff touches a user-facing surface and the contract lacks matching visual or behavioral coverage, request changes. User-facing surfaces include rendered UI, terminal interface screens, web/mobile/native views, CLI output that a user reads, human-rendered paths such as generated reports or docs, and primary state-mutating user journeys such as create/update/delete flows, setup wizards, submit handlers, top-level commands, and IPC bridge methods that front a mutation.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 84 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 2e6032b9fd82
review-implementation-functionality-evidence is a skill published in the GitHub repository doordash-oss/agentic-orchestrator (102 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,359 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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…