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 elevanaltd/HestAI-MCP --skill review-contextgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/elevanaltd/HestAI-MCPWrote 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/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/review-context)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/review-context"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/review-context/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/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/review-context"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/review-context.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00837 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00418 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00167 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00084 |
Grade A, and why
review-context 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.
What it actually says
===SKILL:REVIEW_CONTEXT=== META: TYPE::SKILL VERSION::"1.0.0" STATUS::ACTIVE PURPOSE::"Path-specific review instructions for CRS. Encodes domain knowledge about file categories, review focus areas, and format exceptions to prevent false positives and guide reviewers to high-value findings."
§1::CORE AUTHORITY::ADVISORY[review_focus_guidance] PHASE::PRE_REVIEW[loaded_before_CRS_begins_review_judgement] COMPLEMENTS::[review-preflight<context_collection>,review-discipline,review-prioritization]
§2::PATH_INSTRUCTIONS // Path-specific review focus areas. // CRS loads these instructions to calibrate review depth and focus per file type. // CRS-native path instructions for calibrating review depth per file type. SOURCE_FILES::[ PATHS::"src//*.py", FOCUS::[security,correctness,type_safety,error_handling], STANDARDS::[ "All public functions must have docstrings", "Line length 100 chars", "Project uses ruff for linting and mypy for type checking" ] ] TEST_FILES::[ PATHS::"tests//.py", FOCUS::[edge_case_coverage,pytest_marker_usage,test_structure], STANDARDS::[ "Test files mirror src/ structure", "Check test coverage of edge cases", "Proper use of pytest markers (smoke, unit, behavior, contract)" ], ANTI_PATTERN::"Do not suggest restructuring test file layout" ] BUNDLED_HUB::[ PATHS::"src/hestai_mcp/_bundled_hub/**", FOCUS::[structural_correctness], STANDARDS::[ "Bundled governance files (mirrored to .hestai-sys/ at install time)", "Review for structural correctness only" ], FORMAT_EXCEPTION::"Do not flag OCTAVE format (.oct.md) for markdown issues - these use intentionally non-standard notation" ] OCTAVE_FILES::[ PATHS::"/*.oct.md", FOCUS::[structural_completeness,semantic_correctness], FORMAT_EXCEPTION::"OCTAVE format files use domain-specific notation. Do not flag for markdown lint, missing headers, or unconventional formatting. Review for structural completeness and semantic correctness only." ] GITHUB_WORKFLOWS::[ PATHS::".github/workflows/", FOCUS::[event_triggers,secret_handling,job_dependency_chains,shell_injection_risks], STANDARDS::[ "Check for correct event triggers", "Proper secret handling", "Job dependency chains", "Shell injection risks" ] ]
§3::GOVERNANCE_FILE_COVERAGE // CRS must maintain review coverage for governance-sensitive paths even without // external bot reviewers. These paths require elevated attention. ELEVATED_PATHS::[ "src/hestai_mcp/_bundled_hub/standards/→RULE_and_STANDARD_files", "src/hestai_mcp/_bundled_hub/library/agents/→AGENT_DEFINITION_files", "src/hestai_mcp/_bundled_hub/library/skills/**→SKILL_files", ".github/workflows/review-gate.yml→META_CONTROL_PLANE", "scripts/validate_review.py→META_CONTROL_PLANE" ]
§5::ANCHOR_KERNEL TARGET::calibrate_review_depth_and_focus_per_file_type NEVER::[skip_path_instruction_lookup,flag_octave_for_markdown_lint,suggest_test_file_restructuring,ignore_governance_file_coverage] MUST::[apply_path_specific_focus_areas,respect_format_exceptions_for_octave,maintain_governance_file_review_coverage,check_elevated_paths_with_increased_scrutiny] GATE::"Are path-specific review instructions loaded and applied before CRS begins file-level review judgement?"
===END===
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 · 79 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 840a2be69714
review-context is a skill published in the GitHub repository elevanaltd/HestAI-MCP (0 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 837 tokens. 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
test-review
You are an expert DataHub test reviewer. Your role is to evaluate pytest smoke tests against established testing standards, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.
grade-tests
Grade specified test methods individually and produce a concise PR-ready table with each fully qualified test name, an A-F grade, score band, and one-line note. USE FOR per-test feedback on a curated list such as new or modified tests in a pull request, not a suite-wide audit. Polyglot: .NET, Python, TS/JS, Java, Go…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
refactor
Refactors code for quality and maintainability. Triggers: refactor, clean up, restructure, improve code, modernize.