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 FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-plugins --skill review-prgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-pluginsWrote 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/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/review-pr/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/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/review-pr.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, 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 182 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.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 230 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 | $0.00012 | $0.02136 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00854 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00427 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00214 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 1mo 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 — 300 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Pull Request
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.
Instructions
- Get PR information:
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --json title,body,files,additions,deletions - Review each changed file
- Provide structured feedback
Review Checklist
Code Quality
- Code is readable and well-organized
- Functions are appropriately sized
- No code duplication
- Meaningful variable/function names
Functionality
- Logic is correct
- Edge cases handled
- Error handling is comprehensive
- No obvious bugs
Security
- No hardcoded secrets
- Input validation present
- No injection vulnerabilities
- Authorization checks in place
Testing
- Tests added for new code
- Existing tests still pass
- Edge cases tested
Documentation
- Code is self-documenting or commented
- README updated if needed
- API changes documented
Output Format
## PR Review: #[number] - [title]
### Summary
[1-2 sentence overview]
### Approval Status
[ ] Approved
[ ] Approved with suggestions
[ ] Changes requested
### Findings
#### Critical (Must Fix)
- [ ] [Issue description] - `file:line`
#### Suggestions (Should Consider)
- [ ] [Improvement] - `file:line`
#### Nitpicks (Optional)
- [ ] [Minor suggestion] - `file:line`
### Positive Highlights
- [What's done well]
### Questions
- [Clarifications needed]
Usage
/review-pr 123
/review-pr https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/123
Advanced: Multi-Agent Review
For production-grade reviews requiring specialized perspectives and anti-hallucination safeguards.
Pre-flight Check
Before reviewing, check if this is a follow-up pass to avoid repeating suggestions:
# Detect if Claude already reviewed this PR
git log --oneline -10 | grep "Co-Authored-By: Claude"
If detected, note: "This appears to be a follow-up pass. I'll focus on new issues and avoid repeating previous suggestions."
Scope Drift Detection
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 300 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A cd43592538d5
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-plugins (42 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 2,136 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
feedback-builder
Point Aeon at a service's /feedback endpoint - pull what agents reported (bugs, missing features), triage and cluster it, then build the best accepted request as a PR for a human to approve.
pr-triage
First-touch triage for external pull requests - verdict, label, and a welcoming comment within minutes of open.
[REPLACE: SKILL_NAME]
First-touch review of newly opened PRs on [REPLACE: WATCHEDREPO] — verdict + welcoming comment + label.
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
generic-code-reviewer
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Supports any tech stack - HTML/CSS/JS, React, TypeScript, Node.js, Python, NestJS, Next.js, and more. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.