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 | $0.00122 | $0.01844 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00061 | $0.00922 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00369 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00184 |
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 — 114 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.
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/.
Invocation
This skill fixes one finding at a time. The user must provide the path to the specific fix task file:
do-execute-review-fix ./prds/prd-[feature-slug]/review-fixes/fix-[R-XX]-[severidade]-[slug].md
If no file path is provided, list all pendente fix task files in review-fixes/ and ask the user which one to fix.
Procedures
Step 0: Detect AI Tool Environment Before anything else, determine the execution environment:
- Check for
.claude/directory in the project root → Claude Code - Check for
.github/copilot-instructions.mdor.github/directory → GitHub Copilot - Check for
.cursor/rules/or.cursor/mcp.json→ Cursor AI - Check for
opencode.json,.opencode/directory, orAGENTS.md→ Opencode - Resolve available tools based on environment:
- TaskUpdate: available in Claude Code; in Copilot, Cursor, and Opencode, skip gracefully
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 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 (28 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 122 tokens to every session and 1,844 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
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.
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…