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 fmind/dot --skill repository-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fmind/dotWrote 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/fmind/dot/repository-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fmind/dot/repository-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fmind/dot/repository-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/fmind/dot/repository-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fmind/dot/repository-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 | $0.00023 | $0.00941 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00376 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00188 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
repository-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 10d 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 — 42 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Repository Review
Review code or a repository read-only and report actionable defects. Select the requested scope before loading a procedure; a patch review does not imply a whole-repository audit. plan-review owns proposals; repository-maintenance owns applying broad fixes, full-review review-and-fix passes over every area, and smoke running every entry point.
Workflow
- Select scope: for a diff, patch, branch, PR, or self-review, follow diff review. For an entire repository or cross-cutting audit, follow repository audit and the review matrix. Load only the requested mode.
- Record the candidate: read repository instructions and inspect Git status; distinguish the base/head, staged, unstaged, and untracked changes relevant to the review. Preserve user work and tie evidence to that candidate.
- Establish intent: trace requirements through the affected source, callers, tests, and contracts; inspect generator inputs for generated or vendored changes. Challenge speculative abstractions and tests that bypass the public boundary only when they cause a concrete defect.
- Trace risk in proportion to scope: use code-security for security-sensitive changes such as authorization, uploads, deserialization, subprocesses, credentials, and agent tools. Trace removed safeguards through callers and history, and search for variants of confirmed defects.
- Verify proportionately: establish findings with source evidence, focused tests, static analysis, or safe experiments. A read-only review does not automatically require tests or a build. Reuse passing results while relevant inputs remain unchanged; run a full gate only for explicit qualification, repository requirements, or cross-cutting risk. Isolate write-formatting checks when unrelated work is present (dirty-tree rule).
- Report findings: rank actionable defects using the scale below. Give the exact location, reachable trigger, evidence, impact, and smallest correction. Weigh user impact, exploitability, regression likelihood, and confidence; discard preferences and speculation, never manufacture findings, and if none are material, say so. Summarize candidate identity, checks actually run, and remaining limits without expanding validation just to fill a report.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 10d ago Changed · +3 tokens per session 5d44cfc27862
- 12d ago Changed aea6799f55c0
- 14d ago Changed e7dd6b891992
- 15d ago Changed 7f9a64640c42
- 23d ago Changed 20aa624fa886
- 29d ago Changed · -3 tokens per session ec69e70d2b33
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines · -11 tokens per session 213db3387a0d
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines · -6 tokens per session 8a698bcdf632
- 1mo ago Changed d8afbc0a8548
- 1mo ago First seen · 40 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 5c56fe2ae62a
repository-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository fmind/dot (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 941 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
diff-review
Inspect changed code in an exact diff, patch, branch, PR, or candidate for correctness defects. Use for pre-merge or self-review, spec compliance, test gaps, and regression risk — not whole-repo audit, release go/no-go, or plan review.
repository-review
Audit a whole repository across architecture, source, tests, tooling, security, CI/CD, docs, and releases. Use for cross-cutting audits, readiness, or technical-debt reviews with ranked findings — not one diff or release candidate.
dotfiles-bootstrap
Bootstrap a workstation with the dotfiles framework. Takes a GitHub user / owner+repo / explicit clone URL and runs dot init (which shells out to chezmoi) with the right safety prompts. Honors the active agent profile (ask / plan / apply / audit) so it defaults to dry-run in safer modes and full apply in apply.
vibe
Delegate a coding task to a cheap AI model (Mistral Vibe by default, but any provider Vibe knows about — DeepSeek, Gemini Flash, etc.) and supervise the result via git diff. Claude orchestrates, the cheap model codes. Claude consumes 500-1500 tokens per delegation regardless of how many file reads the delegate does…
pr
Create a draft or ready pull request with gh for a jj revision — pushes the bookmark, reviews the full changeset, and drafts a title and body explaining why the change was made. Use when asked to open a PR.
assess-quality
Foundational quality framework: the five questions (readable, easy to start, expands without bloat, consistent, intentional) every other dev skill is judged against, plus the dual-audience and workshop principles. Use when onboarding to a project, defining a quality bar, setting an assessment checklist, or arbitrating…