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 duc01226/EasyPlatform --skill commit-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatformWrote 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/duc01226/easyplatform/commit-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/duc01226/easyplatform/commit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duc01226/easyplatform/commit-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/duc01226/easyplatform/commit-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duc01226/easyplatform/commit-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 | $0.00039 | $0.00372 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00149 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00074 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00037 |
Grade A, and why
commit-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 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.
What it actually says
- Resolve the intended commit and its purpose; load applicable project review rules and overlays. In
--fix-loop, read references/fix-loop.md and snapshot the exact candidate before review; preserve unrelated work. - Inspect every changed file and affected callers for correctness, regressions, security and unnecessary complexity. Trace changed behavior through success, failure and boundary cases; check permissions and affected callers where relevant. Check changed behavior against its configured canonical owner/spec, profile-declared scenario/case and executing test evidence; read further references only for an actual concern. For changed behavior, identify a realistic bug the test should catch; use a targeted mutation probe only when test strength is unclear and edits are authorized.
- Validate concerns inline against source and counterevidence. Findings need a reachable trigger, consequence, file:line, severity and ≥85% confidence; omit speculative advice, unrelated debt and issues already caught by checks. Missing required evidence blocks a pass.
- Default to read-only. With
--fix-loop, fix validated issues within scope and freshly review the whole updated candidate, at most two rounds;--loop-owner=callerstays read-only. Stop with unresolved MEDIUM+ or failed checks; defer nonblocking LOWs. Never extend the budget silently. - Report findings, fixes, checks, rounds and deferred LOWs briefly. Issue a receipt only after a fully covered fresh fix-loop pass and passing required checks, using its original snapshot. Never stage, commit or push from this review; do not load another review workflow routinely.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 13 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 54f384baeec4
commit-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository duc01226/EasyPlatform (12 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 372 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-10-18.
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.
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
review-delta
Review only changes since last commit using impact analysis. Token-efficient delta review with automatic blast-radius detection.
github-contributor
A step-by-step guide for contributing code, tests, documentation, or build changes to open-source projects you do not maintain. It explains how to prepare a pull request that follows the project’s rules and is easier for maintainers to review.
hero-diff-highlight
A dark code editor reveals a red deletion then a green addition with a soft pulse. Function: PR / code-change explainer.
git-pr-workflows-git-workflow
Guide changes through code checks, testing, commits, and pull request preparation. Use when coordinating a complete Git workflow and verifying readiness for collaboration.