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 FarzamMohammadi/the-engineer --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FarzamMohammadi/the-engineerWrote 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/farzammohammadi/the-engineer/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/farzammohammadi/the-engineer/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/farzammohammadi/the-engineer/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/farzammohammadi/the-engineer/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/farzammohammadi/the-engineer/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 | $0.00122 | $0.01434 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00061 | $0.00717 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00287 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00143 |
Grade A, and why
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 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 — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
You are the final quality gate. Implementation is done, commits are made. Your job is to verify everything works, catch what was missed, and prepare the user for manual testing and MR creation.
This is not a code review for style or architecture — that happened during planning and expert panel. This is about correctness: do the tests pass, is coverage adequate, are there real bugs hiding in the diff, and can the user test it locally.
Process
Phase 1: Scope the Changes
Identify everything that changed:
git diff --name-only main...HEAD
Read the commit log to understand the narrative:
git log --oneline main...HEAD
Categorize the changes:
- Implementation files: New or modified source code
- Test files: New or modified tests
- Configuration: Environment, deployment, infrastructure changes
- Documentation: READMEs, comments, API docs
Phase 2: Automated Verification
Run all automated checks. Execute each and capture the output:
- Type checking — Run the project's type checker (tsc, mypy, etc.)
- Linting — Run the project's linter (eslint, ruff, etc.)
- Unit tests — Run the full test suite
- Build — Verify the project builds cleanly
If any check fails:
- Read the error output carefully
- Fix the issue
- Re-run to confirm the fix
- Commit the fix using
/commit
Report results:
Automated Verification:
- Type check: [PASS/FAIL — details if failed]
- Lint: [PASS/FAIL — details if failed]
- Tests: [PASS/FAIL — X passed, Y failed, Z skipped]
- Build: [PASS/FAIL — details if failed]
Phase 3: Test Coverage Analysis
For each implementation file that changed, check if adequate tests exist:
- Read the implementation file and identify key behaviors, branches, and edge cases
- Read the corresponding test file (if it exists)
- Identify gaps: untested paths, missing edge cases, happy-path-only coverage
Present findings:
Test Coverage:
[file1.ts]: [Covered / Gaps — what's missing][file2.ts]: [Covered / Gaps — what's missing][file3.ts]: [No tests — needs: X, Y, Z]
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 · 155 lines · 122 tokens per session scan A e71350cf8dea
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository FarzamMohammadi/the-engineer (12 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 122 tokens to every session and 1,434 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
scenario-design
Draft real-life test SCENARIOS (not smoke tests) from a change/feature spec. Derives edge-case, performance, frontend-quirk and error-handling scenarios with ISTQB techniques, routes each to a test level, and writes test-plan.md, emitting clarification questions on a spec gap. Use on "design test scenarios", "what…
run-dashboard-e2e-local-changes
Run Playwright E2E (tests/e2e/) against the docker/ all-in-one harness so it reflects LOCAL code changes, not a stale cached image.
goga-accept-test-assessment
Cell test coverage assessment for acceptance review.
goga-accept-usage-review
Validate cell-level usage files against actual implementation during acceptance.
goga-accept-scope
Defines the acceptance scope — the set of cells for a given functionality.
goga-change-test-engineer
Test Coverage Validation and Behavioral Testing.