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 drn/dots --skill rereviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/drn/dotsWrote 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/drn/dots/rereview)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/drn/dots/rereview"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/drn/dots/rereview.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 | $0.00029 | $0.04040 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.02020 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00808 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00404 |
Grade A, and why
rereview 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 3d 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 — 388 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fresh-Eyes Re-Review
Re-review all branch changes from scratch with independent competing reviewers. Designed for when you need absolute confidence before merging -- no regressions, no blind spots.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS- Optional: branch or commit range to review (defaults to current branch vs main/master)
Context
- Current branch: !
git branch --show-current - Base ref: !
git branch -r 2>/dev/null | grep -oE 'origin/(main|master)' | head -1 - Git status: !
git status --short - Project type: !
ls go.mod Gemfile package.json Cargo.toml pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null | head -5 - Test framework: !
git ls-files 2>/dev/null | grep -E '_test\.|\.test\.|_spec\.' | head -10 - Changes vs main: !
git diff --stat origin/main...HEAD 2>/dev/null | head -50 - Changes vs master: !
git diff --stat origin/master...HEAD 2>/dev/null | head -50
Overview
You are the lead coordinator for a fresh-eyes re-review. Your job:
- Gather every change on the branch
- Run the full test suite to establish a regression baseline
- Launch 3 independent reviewer sub-agents in parallel -- they do NOT see each other's findings
- Synthesize their reports, surface disagreements, and produce a final verdict
Core principle: This is a slow, paranoid review. Speed does not matter. Thoroughness does. Every changed line must be analyzed. Every behavior change must be justified. If there is any doubt about a regression, it is flagged as BLOCKING.
You do NOT review code yourself. You coordinate and synthesize.
Phase 0: Gather Everything
- Determine review scope:
IF $ARGUMENTS contains a branch name or commit range:
Use that as the review scope
ELSE:
Review current branch changes vs the default branch (main/master)
- Collect the full diff and all changed files:
git diff {base}...HEAD # full diff
git diff {base}...HEAD --name-only # changed file list
git log --oneline {base}...HEAD # all commits on this branch
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 388 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A ba2ec16523a5
rereview is a skill published in the GitHub repository drn/dots (23 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 4,040 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…
github-contributor
End-to-end playbook for shipping high-quality pull requests to open-source projects you don't maintain — discovery, CONTRIBUTING compliance, PR-size check, minimal-diff implementation, PR description with AI-assisted disclosure, conflict resolution, and post-submission maintainer interaction. Use whenever creating…
revdiff
Review diffs, files, and documents with inline annotations in a TUI overlay, or answer questions about revdiff usage, configuration, themes, and keybindings. Opens revdiff in agterm/tmux/zellij/herdr/kitty/wezterm/cmux/ghostty/iterm2/emacs-vterm, captures annotations, and addresses them. Works in git, hg, and jj repos…
write-pr
Reference standards for writing pull request titles and descriptions in the tldraw repository, plus the pre-flight comment sweep over the diff. Use as supporting guidance when another skill or workflow needs PR content standards, not as the user-facing create/update PR workflow.