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 Evyasys-Software-Solutions/EvyaGovernance --skill evyasys-review-devgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Evyasys-Software-Solutions/EvyaGovernanceWrote 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/evyasys-software-solutions/evyagovernance/evyasys-review-dev)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/evyasys-software-solutions/evyagovernance/evyasys-review-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/evyasys-software-solutions/evyagovernance/evyasys-review-dev/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/evyasys-software-solutions/evyagovernance/evyasys-review-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/evyasys-software-solutions/evyagovernance/evyasys-review-dev.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 | $0.00090 | $0.00726 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00045 | $0.00363 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
evyasys-review-dev 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: evyasys-review-dev
Acts as an independent senior code reviewer — separate from the developer role. Follows the same layered-config pattern as every other Evyasys workflow:
- Plugin defaults loaded first (
.ai/rules/*.md,.ai/workflows/review-dev/*) - Project overrides win (
.evyasys/rules/*.md,.evyasys/workflows/review-dev/*) - Project config applied (
.evyasys/project.yaml)
Reads the diff against main, checks every AC has a passing test, validates the implementation against the agreed Tech Brainstorm approach, and runs a full 9-step structured review covering correctness, security, architecture, and code health.
Severity model
| Level | Meaning | Blocks? |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Untested AC, broken logic, security hole, cross-layer architecture violation | YES |
| Important | Test gap, performance risk, consistency violation, scalability smell, standard-practice breach | Should fix before QA |
| Minor | Style, naming, small dirty-code signal | Note |
| Strength | Well-done pattern | — |
Review dimensions
| Dimension | What is checked |
|---|---|
| AC Coverage | Every AC has a named, passing test — or Critical is raised |
| Correctness | Logic, null handling, error cases, race conditions |
| Security | Input validation, auth/authz, no secrets in code |
| Architecture | Layer boundaries enforced, files in correct modules, contracts not broken |
| Code Structure | Single Responsibility, correct abstraction level, no God functions/classes |
| Standard Practices | .ai/rules/*.md followed, no magic values, consistent error handling |
| Consistency | Same problem solved the same way as elsewhere in the codebase |
| Scalability | No N+1 queries, no unbounded scans, extendable interfaces |
| Dirty Code | Function length, nesting depth, duplication, dead code, misleading names |
| YAGNI | Unused code grep'd before flagging; over-engineering flagged |
| Diff Scope | Out-of-scope changes identified, debug markers removed |
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 57 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A 793f2ed3d60b
evyasys-review-dev is a skill published in the GitHub repository Evyasys-Software-Solutions/EvyaGovernance (7 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 726 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
michel-packmind-engineer-review
Review an implemented GitHub issue the way a senior Packmind engineer would — the human-judgment checks that ESLint, the TypeScript compiler, and e2e tests cannot catch (authorization scoping, hexagonal-architecture conformance, analytics-event wiring, UX copy, UI reactivity, CLI behavior, multi-tenancy safety, and…
idea-team
A structured group discussion for exploring a product idea through three roles: researcher, critic, and analogy finder. The roles look for evidence, weaknesses, and useful comparisons.
codex-agent
Use when you want a second-opinion review via Codex CLI, cross-verification after another agent implements changes, debugging help, or alternative implementation proposals. Requires Codex CLI to be installed and authenticated.
project-health-auditor
Comprehensive codebase health analysis. Use when reviewing code quality, identifying technical debt, checking dependencies, or assessing project structure.
review-gate
Use before an agent-produced diff is committed, pushed, opened as a PR, merged, landed, or applied to user files when explicit implementation approval is missing. Trigger for review gate, review pack, approve before landing, diff first then land, human approval, merge gate, commit gate, push gate, or PR readiness.…
review-spd
Findings-first code review workflow for AI coding agents. Use when the user asks to review uncommitted changes, commits in a date range, or a branch compared to the main branch / PR-style diff. Focuses on bugs, regressions, correctness risks, missing tests, security/data-safety issues, and other behavior-changing…