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 EternallLight/tgc-skills --skill review-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EternallLight/tgc-skillsWrote 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/eternalllight/tgc-skills/review-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eternalllight/tgc-skills/review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eternalllight/tgc-skills/review-loop/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/eternalllight/tgc-skills/review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eternalllight/tgc-skills/review-loop.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 | $0.00057 | $0.01392 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00696 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00139 |
Grade A, and why
review-loop scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Loop — review → fix → re-review until clean
Proceed only when the surrounding user request explicitly asks for the loop (including
direct /tgc-skills:review-loop invocation) or tgc-skills:ship/tgc-skills:checkpoint
invokes it. It commits fixes and pushes once, so stop without that authorization.
Review the branch diff with independent agents, fix legitimate findings, and repeat until clean or a stop condition is reached. Never merge the PR.
Keep the loop out of the main context
Create STATUS=$(mktemp "${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/tgc-review-loop.XXXXXX") and tell the user
that progress is visible there. Then launch one general-purpose subagent with the repo
path, optional PR/branch argument, status path, and the complete workflow below. The main
context manages only the dispatch and final report. Subagents may start in the
background; explicitly wait for this one to finish before returning or letting a parent
workflow report completion.
Subagent workflow
Setup and heartbeat
-
Resolve the local
nameWithOwner, current branch, and GitHub default branch. Stop if the current branch is the default branch. Require a supplied branch argument to equal the current branch. If a PR is supplied or detected, require its URL repository to matchnameWithOwnerand itsheadRefNameto match the current branch. Stop on any mismatch. Use itsbaseRefName; without a PR, use the default branch. -
Require a clean working tree. Stop and report staged, unstaged, or untracked files rather than silently excluding them.
-
Fetch the resolved base and review its diff consistently throughout the loop. Capture the base ref from command output into a shell variable and always reference it quoted — a valid Git ref can contain shell metacharacters (
$(...), backticks), and command-substitution output is not re-evaluated, so this cannot inject commands:BASE_REF=$(gh pr view <pr> --json baseRefName --jq .baseRefName \ || gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef --jq .defaultBranchRef.name) git fetch origin "$BASE_REF" LOOP_BASE=$(git rev-parse HEAD) git diff "origin/$BASE_REF...HEAD" -
Create/truncate the passed status file outside the repo:
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 · 138 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 34b4c587edd6
review-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository EternallLight/tgc-skills (8 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 1,392 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…