Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to frostney/GocciaScript. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/frostney/GocciaScript/main/.agents/skills/review-pr/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/frostney/GocciaScriptWrote 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/frostney/gocciascript/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/frostney/gocciascript/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/frostney/gocciascript/review-pr.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00047 | $0.01518 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00759 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00304 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00152 |
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 6d 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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review PR
Converge exactly one pull request without creating a second review conversation.
With the exact automatic-merge qualifier, merge an ordinary PR only after the
same exact-head convergence contract passes.
Invariants
-
Preserve unrelated work. Never amend, force-push, or revert changes you did not author.
-
Reply only in the originating review thread. Every inline automation thread requires a maintainer-workflow reply stating its evidence-backed disposition before readiness or merge, including invalid, obsolete, duplicate, and out-of-scope findings. Do not post top-level PR summaries or issue comments. In
automatic-mergemode, a documented automation retrigger command is the only allowed top-level comment. -
Before any substantive review post or reply, resolve the authenticated GitHub username and exact model name from current forge and host evidence. Stop if either is unavailable; never guess. End each reply with this GitHub Note and keep the full reply at 300 characters or fewer:
[!NOTE] Created on behalf of @username using ModelName.
Do not append attribution to an exact automation retrigger command because extra text can invalidate it.
-
Validate findings before changing code and run the relevant project checks after fixes.
-
Discover active review tools from current repository configuration, branch protection, checks, and PR activity. Do not hardcode one provider or require an integration that is disabled, historical, or merely installed.
-
Treat a terminal automation check as completion evidence only. Success and neutral conclusions never establish that the automation reported no findings; consume and classify the helper's exact-head
findingSurfacesbefore any readiness or merge conclusion. -
Treat review, approval, thread-readiness, finding, and CI evidence as valid only for the exact current PR head. A new commit or baseline update resets every affected gate.
-
Own no label routing, milestone scheduling, stack scheduling, cross-PR admission, or project-specific CI policy. If the PR is a native stack member, converge this layer and return its state to the stack owner without merging.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 6d ago First seen · 128 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 500f11719c55
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository frostney/GocciaScript (20 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,518 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
git-step-commit
Analyze Git changes, split them into coherent commits, infer message language and format, optionally close supplied GitHub issues, and execute safely. Manage persistent global or repository preferences for review versus direct submission and automatic or specified commit-message language through native Git config.…
triage-contributor-pr
Triage open pull requests from external contributors to prisma/prisma and produce a per-PR verdict with evidence. Use when a maintainer asks to triage, evaluate, assess, or review the queue of incoming contributor PRs, to decide whether a fork PR is safe to run CI on, to check whether a PR is in scope for its version…
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
review-triage-phase
Produces canonical review actions from fetched review state and renders action markdown. Use when the user wants only triage/action-planning for the review-framework workflow.
compiler-commit
Use when you want to verify compiler changes and commit with the correct convention. Runs tests, lint, and format, then commits with the [compiler] or [rust-compiler] prefix.
reviewing-personhog-protocol
The full review process for personhog coordination-protocol changes — leases, fencing, handoffs, supervisors, failure budgets, warming, and changelog semantics. Use before pushing or requesting review on any personhog protocol changeset, when asked for an exhaustive or careful review of personhog code, and after any…