Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Eduardo-Salvador/Agent-Harness-Kit. 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/Eduardo-Salvador/Agent-Harness-Kit/main/.agents/skills/governed-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Eduardo-Salvador/Agent-Harness-KitWrote 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/eduardo-salvador/agent-harness-kit/governed-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eduardo-salvador/agent-harness-kit/governed-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eduardo-salvador/agent-harness-kit/governed-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/eduardo-salvador/agent-harness-kit/governed-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eduardo-salvador/agent-harness-kit/governed-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 | $0.00022 | $0.00444 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00222 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00089 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
governed-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 6d 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
Governed review
Load review only for assurance: light|full. assurance: none closes on executor verification regardless of lane. Create the packet because an actual separate reviewer will consume it; never create a ceremonial handoff for same-context work.
Follow ../../../harness/playbooks/review-integration.md and the completed task's review_profile/max_review_rounds. Assurance is automatic and non-blocking: never request human approval, reopen the historical completed node, or stop unrelated ready work.
Round 1 must run under a different identity in a fresh context with no implementer conversation history. When the capability manifest proves spawn_subagent, automatically launch a review subagent; otherwise use a new visible task/chat or manually opened clean context. Never review in the implementer's context or pretend isolation exists. Send only the review packet: pinned executable task SPEC, its explicitly referenced approved authorities, changed paths/diff, immutable handoff, verification/TDD evidence, scoped rules, and read/impact sets. Exclude the original prompt, conversational memory, implementation reasoning, and proposed verdict.
Reconstruct expected behavior from the SPEC before inspecting the implementation. Judge each acceptance criterion against code and independently checked evidence; a prompt/SPEC conflict requires a spec-revision finding, never reinterpretation from memory. Round 1 is proportional to risk; for TDD tasks verify that RED preceded production behavior, failed for the intended reason, GREEN used the identical focused command, and proportional regression passed. Reject fabricated/irrelevant RED or an unjustified non-TDD strategy. Round 2 uses another focused fresh context and pins only the SPEC, linked remediation, prior blocker IDs, correction delta, and proportional regressions. Only evidence-backed acceptance, security/privacy/data, contract, required-runtime, ownership, or material-regression violations create remediation. Record optional improvements as follow-ups. A second rejection forces task/acceptance rewrite, decomposition, or a genuine human product/risk decision. Never request round 3 or expand commit/integration/push/deploy/publication authority.
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.
- 6d ago Changed 3f4fe9c9bcb9
- 12d ago First seen · 15 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 675fa0d9d4e9
governed-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Eduardo-Salvador/Agent-Harness-Kit (6 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 444 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-team
Use when assigned a review or when an authored review boundary is reached.
cw-slice
Use before writing code for any Codewhale feature, upgrade, or refactor: find the existing owner of the behavior, bound the change to one reviewable slice, and fix the evidence bar before you start.
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
gh-compile-issues
Triage N GitHub issues into a coverage matrix: fetch each, check current code, classify already-done/quick-fix/design/defer with cited evidence.
review
Diff-scoped correctness review that reads the codebase around the change — callers, contracts, and invariants — and returns line-anchored findings ranked by severity with confidence, then a merge-risk verdict. Use for reviewing a PR, diff, or named change set. Not for style review, approvals-as-rubber-stamp, or…
simplify
Improve clarity and reduce needless complexity after behavior is understood; preserve behavior and keep cleanup separate from correctness fixes.