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 fpindej/netrock --skill address-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fpindej/netrockWrote 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/fpindej/netrock/address-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fpindej/netrock/address-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fpindej/netrock/address-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00014 | $0.00682 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00341 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
address-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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/address-review
Read review comments on a GitHub PR, evaluate each one, and address it appropriately.
Steps
- Resolve the PR number. If an argument is provided, use it. Otherwise, detect from current branch:
gh pr view --json number,title,url
- Fetch all review comments (includes inline code comments and review threads):
gh api --method GET repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments
gh api --method GET repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/reviews
(Always pass --method GET explicitly for gh api reads - only explicit-GET calls are pre-approved by the project permissions.)
Filter to only unresolved threads with actual review content. Read the full thread (all replies in each discussion), not just the first comment.
- For each unresolved thread, evaluate what type of comment it is:
A. Change request ("change this", "use X instead of Y", "add Z")
- Read the referenced file + surrounding context
- Evaluate if the change is correct, factual, and worth it
- If yes: make the change, reply with what was changed and which commit
- If the change would break something or is incorrect: explain why and propose an alternative
B. Question ("why is this here?", "doesn't X already handle...?")
Reply with a clear explanation. Reference specific code/docs. If the answer reveals a real issue, fix it too.
C. Suggestion / discussion ("we could...", "what if we...")
Evaluate effort vs impact. Reply with one of:
- "Good idea, I'll do it in this PR" (and do it)
- "Makes sense, but better as a follow-up" (explain why)
- "I don't think it's needed because..." (explain reasoning)
D. Factual correction ("that's not true", "table doesn't have column X")
Verify the claim by reading the actual code/schema. If the reviewer is right, fix it. If wrong, explain with evidence.
- Reply to each thread:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments/{comment_id}/replies --method POST -f "body=<reply>"
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 · 77 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 677c486578d0
address-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository fpindej/netrock (232 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 682 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
setup-husky-dotnet
Use when configuring Git hooks in .NET projects before team commits occur, to enforce commit message standards and code formatting automatically.
git-workflow
Git workflow and conventional commits. Use when working with git, branches, commits, pull requests, code review, or version control strategy.
fleet-review
Code review checklist and PR review workflow for Fleet QA agents.
github_read
Read access: repos, issues, PRs, files, branches, workflows, runs.
dev-cycle
· Run dev workflow: branch, implement, lint/test, review, docs, PR, merge, release. Triggers: 'start working', 'kick off', 'wrap up', 'ship this', 'ready to ship'. Not for single git ops (use git).
pull-request-guide
Use when authoring a pull or merge request - writing the description, sizing and splitting the change, documenting how it was tested, surfacing tradeoffs, and getting it review-ready before assigning reviewers. Triggers on opening a PR/MR, PR descriptions or templates, large or atomic PRs, what to put in a PR, draft…