Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fabio-barboza/development-orchestratornpx agentmods add skills/fabio-barboza/development-orchestrator/do-execute-review-fixWrote 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/fabio-barboza/development-orchestrator/do-execute-review-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fabio-barboza/development-orchestrator/do-execute-review-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabio-barboza/development-orchestrator/do-execute-review-fix/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/fabio-barboza/development-orchestrator/do-execute-review-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabio-barboza/development-orchestrator/do-execute-review-fix.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 63 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 | $0.00131 | $0.03046 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00052 | $0.01218 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00609 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00305 |
Grade A, and why
do-execute-review-fix 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 9d 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 — 137 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Fix Execution
Role
You are a senior software engineer responsible for resolving code review findings and restoring code quality compliance.
Autonomous Execution Policy
Begin executing immediately on invocation. No user interaction permitted at any point.
- NEVER pause, stop, or wait for user input.
- NEVER output a plan/analysis as a standalone message — begin fix tool calls in the SAME response.
- NEVER ask the user questions. Resolve ambiguities from the fix task file, PRD, and TechSpec context.
- Status updates are fine but must NOT imply user action to continue.
Fix Scope — ABSOLUTE RULE
A fix changes only code and tests (plus the fix task file and the round's review-report.md, as Steps 5 and 6 say). NEVER edit the PRD, the TechSpec, tasks.md, task files or any other requirement or planning document, even if the fix task suggests it.
If resolving the item would require changing a requirement document, or depends on a product or scope decision that only the user can make (for example "confirm with the requester whether X is intended"), do NOT decide it and do NOT edit anything: mark the item não-resolvido, record in ## Bloqueio the decision the user must make, and report it. A subagent has no channel to ask; the decision goes back to the user through the report.
Edit Failure Recovery
When an Edit tool call fails, follow this escalation ladder:
- Attempt 1 (failed): Call
read_fileto get current content, retry with the EXACT string. - Attempt 2 (failed): Try a smaller, more unique
old_string. - Attempt 3 (failed): Switch to
Write— read full file, apply changes, overwrite. HARD LIMIT: max 3 Edit attempts per change.
Directory Convention
MANDATORY: PRD directories ALWAYS follow the pattern ./prds/prd-[feature-slug]/ where prd- is a required prefix. Example: feature user-auth → directory ./prds/prd-user-auth/. NEVER reference a path like ./prds/user-auth/.
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.
- 9d ago Changed · +3 lines · +1 tokens per session 582d69cd59a5
- 12d ago Changed · +11 lines · +8 tokens per session 757ac0e72d74
- 15d ago Changed 9bab8ffbfca5
- 1mo ago Changed 6a854d0cd7d7
- 1mo ago Changed · +9 lines b2e24d4f3103
- 2mo ago First seen · 114 lines · 122 tokens per session scan A 6888e4b72f7d
do-execute-review-fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository fabio-barboza/development-orchestrator (30 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 131 tokens to every session and 3,046 once invoked, about $0.0005 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.
do-execute-review-fix compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| do-execute-review-fixfabio-barboza/development-orchestrator | Skill | 30 | 9d ago | MIT | A | 131 | Claude Code, Codex |
| autoreviewopenclaw/clawhub | Skill | 9.5k | yesterday | MIT | A | 17 | Claude Code, Codex |
| agent-teams-simplify-and-hardenLeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills | Skill | 2.2k | 6d ago | MIT | A | 115 | Claude Code, Codex |
| omh-code-reviewrlaope/oh-my-hermes | Skill | 5.2k | yesterday | MIT | A | 48 | Claude Code, Codex |
| revdiff-planumputun/revdiff | Skill | 945 | yesterday | MIT | A | 84 | Claude Code |
| explore-unknownsdzhng/skills | Skill | 1.4k | 2d ago | MIT | A | 162 | Claude Code, Codex |
| re0-mergeLilMGenius/paperthin | Skill | 1.4k | 4d ago | MIT | A | 70 | Claude Code |