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 fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall --skill deep-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_MallWrote 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/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/deep-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/deep-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/deep-review/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/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/deep-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/deep-review.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 | $0.00054 | $0.01322 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00027 | $0.00661 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00264 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00132 |
Grade A, and why
deep-review 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 8d 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 — 161 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Deep Review
Perform thorough code review using three perspectives with opposing mindsets. Their disagreement surfaces issues; their agreement signals confidence.
When to Use
- Architectural changes, multi-file refactors, or security-sensitive code
- PRs that are too important for single-pass review
- When you suspect confirmation bias in a standard review
- High-stakes merges where the cost of a missed issue is high
When NOT to Use
- Routine single-file edits (use standard
code-reviewskill) - Documentation-only PRs
- Formatting/linting changes
The Three Perspectives
| Agent | Mindset | Question | Owns |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advocate | "Why is this correct?" | Trust boundaries, design rationale, false-positive defense | Correctness defense |
| Skeptic | "How can I break this?" | Bugs, edge cases, code smells that indicate bugs | Correctness attack |
| Architect | "Is this the right direction?" | System impact, scope, structural smells, tech debt | Direction |
Workflow
Phase 1: Gather Context
- Identify the changes — PR diff, local changes, or specific files
- Collect context — related files, tests, recent history of changed modules
- Note observations — anything unusual before analysis begins
Phase 2: Parallel Analysis
Run all three perspectives independently. Each sees the same context but asks different questions.
Advocate Analysis
- What problem does this solve?
- What design decisions are intentional (not accidental)?
- Where are the trust boundaries correctly placed?
- What would break if we rejected this PR?
- Defend against false-positive concerns raised by Skeptic
Skeptic Analysis
- What inputs could break this? (null, empty, overflow, concurrent, malicious)
- What error paths are unhandled?
- What assumptions are undocumented?
- What would a fuzzer find?
- What code smells indicate deeper bugs? (naming lies, magic numbers, commented-out code)
- What works in tests but would fail in production?
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 161 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A e7149ab17732
deep-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,322 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-pr
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
refactor
Analyze code for SOLID violations and suggest targeted improvements.
code-qualities-assessment
Assess code maintainability through 5 foundational qualities (cohesion, coupling, encapsulation, testability, non-redundancy) with quantifiable scoring rubrics. Works at method/class/module levels across multiple languages. Produces markdown reports with remediation guidance. Use when you ask to "assess…
golden-principles
Scan repository for golden principle violations with agent-readable remediation. Enforces GP-001 through GP-008 from .agents/governance/golden-principles.md. Use when auditing compliance, preparing PRs, or running garbage collection scans.
pr-quality-qa
Judge a local diff on test coverage, error handling, and whether the tests would fail if the code regressed, and return a PASS/WARN/CRITICALFAIL verdict. Use when you say qa review my changes, run the qa gate, or are these tests good enough. Do NOT use to run all six axes (use pr-quality-all), and do NOT use to write…