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-prioritizationgit 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-prioritization)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/review-prioritization"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/review-prioritization/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-prioritization"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/elevanaltd/hestai-mcp/review-prioritization.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 | $0.00630 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00252 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
review-prioritization 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 1mo 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_PRIORITIZATION=== META: TYPE::SKILL VERSION::"2.0.0" STATUS::ACTIVE PURPOSE::"Severity-ordered finding triage for CRS reviews. Context-adaptive: PR reviews get display budget, standalone/audit reviews report all findings."
§1::CORE AUTHORITY::ADVISORY[finding_ordering⊕batch_triage] COMPLEMENTS::[review-discipline<confidence_levels>,constructive-feedback]
§2::PRIORITY_TIERS // Order: P0→P5. Within each tier: CERTAIN→HIGH→MODERATE. P0_SECURITY::injection⊕auth_bypass⊕secrets⊕XSS⊕CSRF⊕privilege_escalation[FLOOR::MODERATE] P1_CORRECTNESS::logic_errors⊕data_loss⊕race_conditions⊕null_deref⊕unchecked_errors[FLOOR::HIGH] P2_RELIABILITY::missing_tests⊕error_handling_gaps⊕unvalidated_input⊕resource_leaks[FLOOR::HIGH] P3_ARCHITECTURE::coupling⊕cohesion⊕abstraction_violations⊕API_design⊕scope_creep[FLOOR::HIGH] P4_PERFORMANCE::algorithmic_complexity⊕N_plus_1⊕memory⊕caching[FLOOR::HIGH] P5_STYLE::naming⊕formatting⊕documentation⊕conventions[FLOOR::CERTAIN]
§3::BUDGET // Context-adaptive: detect review mode from task description PR_REVIEW::[BUDGET::15,P0_P1::uncapped,P2::up_to_remaining,P3_P5::if_budget_remains,over_budget::append_"+N omitted"] STANDALONE::[BUDGET::none,report_all_findings_at_or_above_confidence_floor] AUDIT::[BUDGET::none,report_all_findings_at_or_above_confidence_floor] DEFAULT::PR_REVIEW // P5: consolidate into single note when count exceeds 5 (any mode)
§4::OUTPUT SUMMARY::include_tier_distribution["P0:N P1:N P2:N P3:N P4:N P5:N"] STRUCTURE::P0_P1_first→P2_P4_next→P5_last // PR metadata fields (priority_distribution, findings_omitted) defined in review-handoff pattern
§5::ANCHOR_KERNEL TARGET::severity_ordered_finding_triage NEVER::[report_P5_before_P0,omit_P0_findings,consolidate_P0_or_P1,report_speculative_P5] MUST::[classify_P0_through_P5,sort_by_confidence_within_tier,apply_context_budget,emit_tier_distribution] GATE::"Are findings severity-ordered, confidence-sorted, and budget-appropriate for the review context?"
===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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 41 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 606adbf02d20
review-prioritization is a skill published in the GitHub repository elevanaltd/HestAI-MCP (0 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 630 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…