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 eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one --skill review-implementinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-oneWrote 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/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/review-implementing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/review-implementing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/review-implementing/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/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/review-implementing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eric861129/skills_all-in-one/review-implementing.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 | $0.00035 | $0.00770 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00385 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00154 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
review-implementing 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 11d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to review-implementing — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 137 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Feedback Implementation
Systematically process and implement changes based on code review feedback.
When to Use
- Provides reviewer comments or feedback
- Pastes PR review notes
- Mentions implementing review suggestions
- Says "address these comments" or "implement feedback"
- Shares list of changes requested by reviewers
Systematic Workflow
1. Parse Reviewer Notes
Identify individual feedback items:
- Split numbered lists (1., 2., etc.)
- Handle bullet points or unnumbered feedback
- Extract distinct change requests
- Clarify ambiguous items before starting
2. Create Todo List
Use TodoWrite tool to create actionable tasks:
- Each feedback item becomes one or more todos
- Break down complex feedback into smaller tasks
- Make tasks specific and measurable
- Mark first task as
in_progressbefore starting
Example:
- Add type hints to extract function
- Fix duplicate tag detection logic
- Update docstring in chain.py
- Add unit test for edge case
3. Implement Changes Systematically
For each todo item:
Locate relevant code:
- Use Grep to search for functions/classes
- Use Glob to find files by pattern
- Read current implementation
Make changes:
- Use Edit tool for modifications
- Follow project conventions (CLAUDE.md)
- Preserve existing functionality unless changing behavior
Verify changes:
- Check syntax correctness
- Run relevant tests if applicable
- Ensure changes address reviewer's intent
Update status:
- Mark todo as
completedimmediately after finishing - Move to next todo (only one
in_progressat a time)
4. Handle Different Feedback Types
Code changes:
- Use Edit tool for existing code
- Follow type hint conventions (PEP 604/585)
- Maintain consistent style
New features:
- Create new files with Write tool if needed
- Add corresponding tests
- Update documentation
Documentation:
- Update docstrings following project style
- Modify markdown files as needed
- Keep explanations concise
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 137 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 110c53375da7
review-implementing is a skill published in the GitHub repository eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one (52 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 770 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review-implementing, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
qa
Full QA on all session changes using Codex as a second pair of eyes. Use when user says "QA", "full QA", "QA my changes", "QA all your changes", or "use codex to review". Runs git diff, sends changes to Codex for thorough review, and synthesizes findings.
pr-sweep
Use when you want to sweep all open pull requests across all repos, triage their status, run code reviews on unreviewed PRs, merge what's ready, fix quick blockers, and produce a full status report. Trigger when the user says "check my PRs", "close out open PRs", "what's the status of my PRs", "sweep my PRs", "PR…
rubber-ducky
Use when you've planned a non-trivial change and are about to implement it, finished a complex or multi-file piece of work, just wrote tests, or are stuck on repeated failures — and any time the user says "rubber duck this", "rubber ducky", "get a second opinion", "sanity-check my plan", "poke holes in this", "what am…
review
Use when user invokes /review to review code changes. Also triggers on "review my code", "check this PR", "look at my changes". Accepts a PR number (e.g. /review 123), a path filter (e.g. /review src/auth/), or no argument (reviews current branch vs base). Produces structured per-file review with severity labels…
code-review
Systematic code review checklist.
jira-issue-create
Create one or more Jira issues through acli from user-approved drafts using heading-based Context, Acceptance criteria, and Engineering notes sections. Use only when explicitly invoked to create Jira issues; use jira-issue-refine when requirements still need refinement.