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 ericrisco/rsc-harness --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ericrisco/rsc-harnessWrote 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/ericrisco/rsc-harness/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ericrisco/rsc-harness/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ericrisco/rsc-harness/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/ericrisco/rsc-harness/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ericrisco/rsc-harness/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 6 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 19 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 119 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 121 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 122 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 178 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium Excessive Agency · line 226 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00089 | $0.05247 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.02099 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01049 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00525 |
Grade A, and why
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 15d 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 — 315 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review — adversarial code review, both directions
Review is the penultimate gate of the rsc SDD chain: constitution → specify → clarify → plan → tasks → analyze → implement → verify → **review** → ship. By the time a diff reaches review, the verify phase has already proven that lint, types, tests and the stack verify.sh are green. Review answers a different question: is the green diff actually correct, well-scoped, and faithful to the spec — or did it pass for the wrong reasons?
This skill owns two roles that share one discipline:
- Giving a review — read a diff adversarially, find the real defects, rank them by impact, ship the verdict as evidence not opinion.
- Receiving a review — take incoming feedback (human or machine), verify each point against the code before acting, fix the real findings, and push back — with proof — on the wrong ones.
The discipline is the same in both directions: every finding and every rebuttal carries evidence — no agreement without verification, no objection without a defect. A reviewer who waves through a bug to be agreeable, and an author who edits working code because a comment sounded authoritative, are making the same mistake. Everything below is in service of that one rule.
Route out when the ask isn't this gate: a deep OWASP / threat-model pass belongs to ../secure-coding/SKILL.md (review folds its findings in, but the dedicated pass is owned there); a "is this idiomatic React/FastAPI/Go/SQL" question belongs to the stack skill (../nextjs/SKILL.md, ../fastapi/SKILL.md, ../go/SKILL.md, ../postgresdb/SKILL.md, ../flutter/SKILL.md) — pull the idiom there, then judge against it here.
Read these first
02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/specs/<slug>.mdand02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/plans/<slug>.md— what the diff was supposed to do. A review with no spec is a review of vibes.02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/constitution.md— the project's non-negotiables (stack canon, quality bars, conventions). Constitution violations are findings even when the code "works".02-DOCS/wiki/harness/user-profile.md—technical_level, the register (see "How a review reads" below).
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 15d ago Changed · +21 lines 2b4f07087fb8
- 19d ago Changed · -3 lines 7f6f5e9fffef
- 1mo ago First seen · 297 lines · 89 tokens per session scan A 692d45ac1eca
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ericrisco/rsc-harness (239 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 89 tokens to every session and 5,247 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Reviews diffs by severity to produce actionable feedback.
pr-workflow
Prepares branches and PRs for clean, reviewable merges.
receiving-code-review
Processes review feedback until the change is approved.
diff-to-graph
Turns a diff's touched functions and modules into graph nodes, reusing entities the graph already tracks, and links the change itself to each one with a modifies edge.
propose-graph-diff
Turns a proposed addition to a JSON-file graph into a minimal, reviewable diff, flagging any proposed edge that conflicts with a cross-reference already on file, and never writing directly to the shared graph file itself.
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, code quality, and efficiency, then directly apply straightforward cleanup improvements. Use when the user wants a post-implementation cleanup pass, pre-PR polish, or asks to simplify/refine recent changes. Invoke with /simplify or /simplify .