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 fusengine/agents --skill pr-summarygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fusengine/agentsWrote 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/fusengine/agents/pr-summary)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fusengine/agents/pr-summary"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fusengine/agents/pr-summary/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/fusengine/agents/pr-summary"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fusengine/agents/pr-summary.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00027 | $0.00382 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00153 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
pr-summary 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
PR Summary Skill
Summarize the current pull request.
Pull Request Context
- PR diff: !
gh pr diff - PR comments: !
gh pr view --comments - Changed files: !
gh pr diff --name-only - PR status: !
gh pr status
Task
Analyze this pull request and provide:
- Overview - What does this PR do?
- Key Changes - Main files and modifications
- Potential Risks - Breaking changes, security concerns
- Review Recommendations - What to check carefully
Output Format
## PR Summary: [Title]
### Overview
[1-2 sentences]
### Key Changes
- [file]: [change description]
- ...
### Risks
- [risk if any]
### Recommendations
- [what to verify]
Debug
- Session: ${CLAUDE_SESSION_ID}
- Timestamp: !
date +%Y-%m-%d_%H:%M:%S
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 · 58 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 9df9a24da22f
pr-summary is a skill published in the GitHub repository fusengine/agents (33 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 382 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
radin-review
Review a commit, PR, directory or range for the simplest native solution, maintainability and documented repo rubrics, triage findings with the user. Use for /radin-review, "review and log to backlog".
reviewing-code
Reviews code. Use when reviewing code implementations, assessing code quality, running a security review, checking spec or design system compliance, or conducting an end-of-build whole-project review against PRD success criteria.
assessing-quality
Conducts quality reviews of non-code artefacts. Use when reviewing or critiquing Skills, agents, workflows, documentation, or written materials, assessing quality against standards, or providing structured feedback.
code
Review code through the lens of a senior engineer.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.