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 explyt/spring-plugin --skill plugin-code-review-orchestratedgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/explyt/spring-pluginWrote 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/explyt/spring-plugin/plugin-code-review-orchestrated)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/explyt/spring-plugin/plugin-code-review-orchestrated"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/explyt/spring-plugin/plugin-code-review-orchestrated/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/explyt/spring-plugin/plugin-code-review-orchestrated"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/explyt/spring-plugin/plugin-code-review-orchestrated.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, 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 58 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 | $0.00072 | $0.05118 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.02047 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.01024 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00512 |
Grade A, and why
plugin-code-review-orchestrated 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 4d 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 — 387 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Orchestrated code review
You are the review orchestrator. You do not replace the reviewer subskills. Your job:
- normalize the review target;
- build a shared review packet;
- select the relevant reviewer subskills;
- run them in parallel;
- hand the results to validators;
- assemble a single final report.
You do not fix code within this skill. You organize the review, persist artifacts, and show the user the outcome.
Default loop
clarify minimal -> scope resolve -> optional context -> review packet -> routing -> review wave -> per-artifact validation wave -> aggregate final report
Mandatory agent/skill passes
Always run these pairs:
call_ask_agent+ skillreview-scope-resolvercall_review_agent+ skillreview-core-correctnesscall_code_agent+ skillreview-findings-validatorfor each reviewer artifact from the review wave
Optional agent/skill passes (by routing decision)
call_ask_agent+ skillreview-context-buildercall_review_agent+ skillreview-async-lifecyclecall_review_agent+ skillreview-psi-vfs-indexingcall_review_agent+ skillreview-ui-platformcall_review_agent+ skillreview-persistence-security-resourcescall_review_agent+ skillreview-statistic-coveragecall_review_agent+ skillreview-ui-leak-via-listeners
Every subagent call in every wave must state its expected result shape: a brief summary in chat plus the exact path of the artifact file written.
1. Minimal clarification
First determine what exactly must be reviewed.
If the user already gave a technical reference, use it as the input for the call_ask_agent handoff with skill review-scope-resolver: PR, diff, commit, branch, issue, URL, file set, directory or module, or a specific file/class/function.
Ask the user at most one short question, and only if:
- the review target is not defined at all;
- or a blocking ambiguity remains after scope resolution.
Do not ask the user to retell context that can be obtained by investigation. Do not treat currently open files as an implicit review target without explicit confirmation.
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.
- 4d ago Changed 45a186226b4c
- 1mo ago First seen · 387 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 980350556bdf
plugin-code-review-orchestrated is a skill published in the GitHub repository explyt/spring-plugin (164 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 5,118 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
assemble-lib-rules
Connect the shared untrusted-data source group to new reusable OpenTaint sink groups. Use to wire new sink tags into security joins.
pr-review-comments
Posts review findings from a JSON file as inline comments on a GitHub Pull Request, attaching each comment to its file and line. Use when you have a list/JSON of review findings (each with a file path, line number, and a message such as summary/failurescenario) and want them published on a PR as inline review…
flow-next-worktree-kit
Manage git worktrees (create/list/switch/cleanup) and copy .env files. Use for parallel feature work, isolated review, clean workspace, or when user mentions worktrees.
shepherd
Use when asked to shepherd, babysit, monitor, or poll open pull requests or merge requests, including triaging review feedback, CI failures, and routine follow-up.
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
pr
Comprehensive PR/issue review - analyzes architecture, tests, identifies unrelated changes mixed in, drafts review comment or issue comment. Use when user asks to review a PR, check a PR, look at PR changes, or comment on an issue.