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 escoffier-labs/skillet --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/escoffier-labs/skilletWrote 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/escoffier-labs/skillet/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/escoffier-labs/skillet/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/escoffier-labs/skillet/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/escoffier-labs/skillet/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/escoffier-labs/skillet/review.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 | $0.00085 | $0.01005 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00043 | $0.00502 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00101 |
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 12d 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 — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
review
After an hour at the pass you cannot taste your own seasoning. The chef sends a plate to a cook who did not make it, because the person who built the dish has gone nose-blind to it. This skill is that second palate for code: dispatching a fresh reviewer that sees the work product, not the hour of reasoning that produced it. It is the independent pass that pass calls for and the producer of the feedback that sendback acts on.
Core principle: the reviewer gets the work and the requirements, never your session history. A reviewer fed your reasoning reviews your reasoning; a reviewer fed the diff reviews the code. Crafted context keeps it honest and keeps your own context free for the work.
When to request a review
- After each task in a plan or stations fan-out, before the next one compounds on it.
- After a major feature, before merge to a shared branch.
- On any change to a repo you do not own.
- Optionally when stuck, for a fresh angle.
A one-line, obviously-safe change (a dependency bump, a typo) does not need this; the pass self-review covers it.
How to run it
1. Pin the range.
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1) # or origin/main, or the task's starting commit
HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
2. Dispatch a reviewer subagent with a complete, self-contained ticket. It inherits nothing, so the prompt is everything it knows:
You are reviewing a focused code change. Review only the diff between {BASE_SHA} and {HEAD_SHA}.
What it is meant to do: {DESCRIPTION}
Requirements / acceptance criteria: {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS}
Inspect: git diff {BASE_SHA}..{HEAD_SHA}
Check, in order:
- Correctness: does it do what the requirements say? Edge cases, error paths, off-by-ones.
- Real fix vs bandaid: does it address the root cause, or mask a symptom (silenced error, widened timeout, catch-and-ignore)?
- Tests: is there a test that fails without the change and passes with it? A regression test for a bugfix?
- Scope: is this one concern, or are unrelated changes bundled in?
- Leaks: secrets, internal hostnames, private IPs, AI-authorship trailers in the diff or messages.
Return findings bucketed Critical / Important / Minor, each with file:line and a concrete fix. End with a one-line verdict: ready to merge, or what blocks it. Do not edit anything; report only.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 71 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 5a280bd1fabd
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository escoffier-labs/skillet (4 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 1,005 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
production-audit
Exhaustive production-readiness audit of any codebase or product. Runs diverse-angle discovery passes until two consecutive passes find nothing new, adversarially verifies every finding against the real code, and reports one flat severity-tagged list with file:line evidence. No summary, no hedging.
craft-audit
The front door to the craft skills — a whole-project production-readiness orchestrator that drives the ten per-domain craft skills (ux, frontend, backend, db, security, infra, observability, testing, lint, ai) instead of auditing one surface at a time. It discovers the project's shape, plans an audit per surface, and…
craft-backend
The Craftsman standard for building and reviewing backend code — API routes, request validation, the authentication boundary, service/business logic, error handling, route rate-limit middleware, third-party integrations, and background jobs. Use this WHENEVER the work touches the server side: adding or reviewing a…
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
one-way-door
Flags irreversible decisions before commit. Use for data models, infra, auth boundaries, API contracts, event schemas, CI/CD.