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 EliasOulkadi/shokunin --skill cross-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EliasOulkadi/shokuninWrote 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/eliasoulkadi/shokunin/cross-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eliasoulkadi/shokunin/cross-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eliasoulkadi/shokunin/cross-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/eliasoulkadi/shokunin/cross-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eliasoulkadi/shokunin/cross-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00101 | $0.01983 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.00793 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00397 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00198 |
Grade A, and why
cross-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 2mo 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 — 186 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reconstruct what you changed during this conversation, then delegate the actual review to a single subagent running the code-review skill with a user-specified model.
IMPORTANT: Steps 1-2 run in the current agent (the master). Only Step 3 spawns a subagent.
Workflow
Step 1: Parse the user request
Extract:
- Model: The model ID from user's request. Validate against available models.
- Review instructions: Any text after "Review instructions:" — pass verbatim.
- Change scope: What should be reviewed. Default: all changes in this conversation.
Step 2: Gather context from your own changes
Reconstruct the diff from conversation history:
-
Compose a unified diff of all changes (Edit, Write, Bash, etc.). Group by file.
- If no changes: Inform user and stop.
-
Read final state of changed files for surrounding context.
-
Check related context:
- Test files related to changed files (skip
node_modules,.git,dist,build) - Config changes that affect behavior
- Related type definitions or interfaces
- Test files related to changed files (skip
Do NOT show gathered context to user. Use only for the subagent.
Step 3: Spawn the review subagent
spawn_subagent:
skill: "code-review"
model: <model from user request>
prompt: |
Review the changes below using "code-review" skill.
CONSTRAINTS:
- Read-only review. Do NOT edit files.
- All context is provided below. Read files only if clearly incomplete.
- Review independently and objectively.
## Review Instructions
{user's review instructions, verbatim}
## Changes
{reconstructed diff, grouped by file}
## Additional Context
{links to related files, tests, type definitions, requirements}
Step 4: Relay the result — READ-ONLY, NO ACTIONS
CRITICAL: Output the subagent's review AS-IS. Do NOT:
- Summarize, rephrase, reorder, or filter
- Fix, improve, or refactor based on findings
- Add your own commentary or caveats
One-line model attribution is acceptable. You may offer to implement recommendations, but let the user decide.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 186 lines · 101 tokens per session scan A 6ebbbb0f527e
cross-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository EliasOulkadi/shokunin (112 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 101 tokens to every session and 1,983 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
sast-sqli
Detect SQL injection vulnerabilities in a codebase using a three-phase approach: recon (find unsafe SQL construction sites), batched verify (trace user input to those sites in parallel subagents, 3 sites each), and merge (consolidate batch results). Covers string concat, f-strings, unsafe ORM methods, and dynamic…
sast-businesslogic
Detect business logic vulnerabilities in a codebase using a three-phase approach: threat modeling (domain analysis and attack scenarios), batched verify (check exploitable gaps in parallel subagents, 3 scenarios each), and merge (consolidate batch results). Covers price manipulation, workflow bypass, limit violations…
sast-graphql
Detect GraphQL injection vulnerabilities in a codebase using a three-phase approach: recon (confirm GraphQL usage and find unsafe operation document assembly sites), batched verify (trace user input to those sites in parallel subagents, up to 3 candidate sites each), and merge (consolidate batch results). Requires…
sast-idor
Detect Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerabilities in a codebase using a three-phase approach: recon (find candidates), batched verify (check authorization in parallel subagents, 3 candidates each), and merge (consolidate batch results). Checks endpoints for missing ownership or authorization checks on…
sast-ssrf
Detect Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerabilities in a codebase using a three-phase approach: recon (find outbound call sites), batched verify (trace user input to destinations in parallel subagents, 3 sites each), and merge (consolidate batch results). Requires sast/architecture.md (run sast-analysis first).…
migration-review
Review database migration files when a change adds or modifies paths under migrations/. Use it before merge to collect forward, rollback, locking, and data-safety evidence.