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 fullymiddleaged/Clawness --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fullymiddleaged/ClawnessWrote 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/fullymiddleaged/clawness/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fullymiddleaged/clawness/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fullymiddleaged/clawness/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/fullymiddleaged/clawness/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fullymiddleaged/clawness/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 | $0.00043 | $0.00347 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00139 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00069 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00035 |
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 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.
What it actually says
Adversarial Code Review
Run a thorough code review using the Clawness code-critic agent.
Before spawning the agent: if you surfaced this proactively (the user mentioned reviewing/merging but didn't explicitly ask to run it), first ask: "Want me to run the adversarial code review now?" Proceed only once they confirm. If the user explicitly invoked
/clawness:reviewor already said yes, skip the question.
Steps
-
Identify changes — If $ARGUMENTS specifies files, review those. Otherwise, check for staged git changes (
git diff --cached). If nothing is staged, review the most recently changed files (git diff HEAD~1). -
Delegate to code-critic — Send the relevant code to the
code-criticsub-agent for adversarial review focusing on:- Correctness bugs and logic errors
- Performance issues (N+1, re-renders, memory leaks)
- Missing edge cases (null, empty, concurrent, malicious)
- Maintainability (naming, complexity, duplication)
-
Report — Present findings grouped by severity. For each finding, include the file, line, problem, and suggested fix.
-
Offer to fix — Ask the user if they want to apply any of the suggested fixes.
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 · 38 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 0043136fd745
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository fullymiddleaged/Clawness (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 347 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
arrow-maintenance
Navigation and audit overlay for linked-intent development. Use when working with docs/arrows/ — orienting via index.yaml, auditing spec-to-code coherence, detecting reverse orphans and drift, splitting/merging/renaming/re-parenting segments. Dual-mode: ambient guidance when the overlay is present…
review-depth
Experimental declared review depth for linked-intent development. Use when a LID project's instruction file declares a review depth in prose (e.g. "Review depth - I review through LLD; below that, consolidate to one review") or the user asks to batch phase reviews, consolidate stops, or let go below a phase depth.…
bidirectional-differential
Audit coherence across an arrow of intent by running two parallel fresh Claude sessions — one reconstructs code from a single EARS, the other reconstructs the EARS from stripped code — then classifies the drift between them. Use when the user invokes /differential-audit, asks to audit EARS-to-code drift for a feature…
triage-aging-prs
Drive an aging pull-request backlog to zero. Inventories every open PR, finds the STRUCTURAL blockers first (a required check that can never run, a reviewer that never fires, chronically red CI), triages every unresolved review thread in parallel and VERIFIES each finding against the code before fixing it, then merges…
review-comments
Systematically pull, categorize, and address all PR review comments — code change requests, questions, and suggestions. This skill fetches comments via gh api, groups them by file, implements fixes, handles disagreements diplomatically, and pushes a single commit. You should not try to handle PR review feedback…
scan-reward-hacking
Scan TypeScript code for reward hacking patterns — shortcuts that make linters pass without actually fixing type safety. This skill has a comprehensive checklist of 8 forbidden patterns with severity tuning (libraries vs apps) that you cannot reliably check on your own. ALWAYS consult this skill when the user says…