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 agentmods add skills/fvadicamo/dev-agent-skills/github-pr-reviewnpx skills add fvadicamo/dev-agent-skills --skill github-pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fvadicamo/dev-agent-skillsWrote 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/fvadicamo/dev-agent-skills/github-pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fvadicamo/dev-agent-skills/github-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fvadicamo/dev-agent-skills/github-pr-review.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 | $0.00095 | $0.02836 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.01418 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00567 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00284 |
Grade A, and why
github-pr-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 4d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- github-pr-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 217 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
GitHub PR review
Resolves Pull Request review comments with severity-based prioritization, fix application, and thread replies.
Current PR
!gh pr view --json number,title,state,milestone -q '"PR #\(.number): \(.title) (\(.state)) | Milestone: \(.milestone.title // "none")"' 2>/dev/null
Core workflow
1. Fetch, filter, and classify comments
REPO=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q '.nameWithOwner')
PR=$(gh pr view --json number -q '.number')
LAST_PUSH=$(git log -1 --format=%cI HEAD)
# Inline review comments - filter out replies (keep only originals)
gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR/comments?per_page=100 --jq '
[.[] | select(.in_reply_to_id == null) |
{id, path, user: .user.login, created_at, body: .body[0:200]}]
'
# PR-level reviews with non-empty body (CodeRabbit sections, Gemini, etc.)
gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR/reviews?per_page=100 --jq '
[.[] | select(.body | length > 0) |
{id, user: .user.login, state, submitted_at, body: .body[0:500]}]
'
Cross-check review-attached comments: CodeRabbit's review body states "Actionable comments posted: N". If the general pulls/$PR/comments endpoint returns fewer than N new originals from that reviewer, some comments are only available via the review-specific endpoint. Fetch them and merge by comment ID:
# $REVIEW_ID from the reviews fetch above; $EXPECTED from parsing "Actionable comments posted: N"
gh api repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR/reviews/$REVIEW_ID/comments?per_page=100 --jq '
[.[] | select(.in_reply_to_id == null) |
{id, path, user: .user.login, created_at, body: .body[0:200]}]
'
Deduplicate by id before continuing. Comments found only via the review-specific endpoint are valid inline comments and should be treated identically (same classification, same in_reply_to reply mechanism).
Filter new vs already-seen: compare created_at/submitted_at with $LAST_PUSH. Comments posted after the last push are new. Mark older comments as "previous round" in the summary table.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 217 lines · 95 tokens per session scan A 77cc65f1c2aa
github-pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository fvadicamo/dev-agent-skills (72 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 2,836 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
web-security-review
Top-level security code review for JavaScript/TypeScript web applications and Electron desktop applications. Use when the user asks to "security review", "find vulnerabilities", "check for security issues", "audit security", "OWASP review", "is this secure?", or to review…
second-opinion
Get a second opinion on freshly written code from the other coding agent — Claude asks Codex, Codex asks Claude — then empirically vet every finding against ground truth before accepting or vetoing it. Use once the code is written and the tests pass, before you commit. Do not use for a delegated review or…
project-setup
Setup and hardening review for cross-platform modern-C++ (C++17) native projects, especially Node.js addons built with node-gyp / node-addon-api. Use when asked to "set up a native addon", "harden a C/C++ build", "review my binding.gyp", "add compiler hardening flags", "wire up AddressSanitizer/UBSan/TSan/clang-tidy"…
resource-review
Top-level memory- and resource-safety code review for modern C/C++ (C++17), including Node.js native addons (node-addon-api / Node-API). Use when the user asks to "review C++/C for memory safety", "find a memory leak", "why does this segfault", "check for use-after-free / double-free / buffer overflow / data race"…
web-security-hardening
Security best-practices and hardening review for JavaScript/TypeScript web and Electron desktop applications. Use when asked to harden an app, review security posture or secure defaults, assess OWASP ASVS or Electron security-checklist alignment, improve HTTP headers or CSP, review forms/input…
stage
Use when committing work from the current session to stage ONLY hunks the session touched, not the entire file. Prevents accidentally staging unrelated uncommitted changes from other work.