agtx is a terminal-based shared workspace where multiple coding agents coordinate through a task board. Developers use it to delegate work, run agents in parallel across git worktrees, and move tasks through different workflow phases.
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 fynnfluegge/agtx --skill agtx-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fynnfluegge/agtxWrote 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/fynnfluegge/agtx/agtx-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fynnfluegge/agtx/agtx-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fynnfluegge/agtx/agtx-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/fynnfluegge/agtx/agtx-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fynnfluegge/agtx/agtx-review.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 | $0.00032 | $0.00477 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00191 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00095 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
agtx-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
Review Phase
You are in the review phase of an agtx-managed task.
Instructions
- Pick the scope. If
.agtx/reviewed-atexists, a prior review covered everything up to that commit: reviewgit diff $(cat .agtx/reviewed-at)..HEADplusgit status --shortfor uncommitted work, and read the prior.agtx/review.md— check its points were addressed, don't re-review the branch. Otherwise review all changes made during execution:git diff HEAD(staged+unstaged) andgit log --oneline $(git merge-base HEAD origin/HEAD)..HEADfor your commits. Do NOT diff againstmainororigin/main— those may include unrelated upstream history. Either way??lines ingit status --shortare untracked files thatgit diffnever shows — read them in full. - Check for:
- Correctness and edge cases
- Error handling
- Code style consistency with the existing codebase
- Test coverage
- Security issues (injection, XSS, etc.)
- Fix any issues you find
- Commit them.
git add -A, commit, verifygit status --shortclean. Uncommitted = destroyed at task completion; merge is blocked until clean.
Output
Write your review to .agtx/review.md in the current working directory with these sections:
Review
Findings from your review — what looks good, what was fixed, any concerns.
Status
Either READY (good to merge) or NEEDS_WORK (with explanation of remaining issues).
CRITICAL: Stop After Writing
After writing .agtx/review.md (in the current working directory):
- Say: "Review written to
.agtx/review.md." - Wait for further instructions
Output Style
Terse. No pleasantries. Fragments OK. Short synonyms. Code exact. Status updates: one line. Pattern: [what] [why]. Done.
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 Changed · +1 lines 9c304d6b4b5a
- 1mo ago First seen · 41 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 22525c88f187
agtx-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository fynnfluegge/agtx (1,721 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 477 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
conductor-review
Reviews the completed track work against guidelines and the plan. Acts as a Principal Software Engineer to ensure quality and compliance.
cmux-review
Review agent-written changes before merge, after substantial edits, or when re-reviewing a repair. Use the adversarial protocol for high-risk changes or an explicitly requested deep review.
pr
Draft a PR body from OMC's paper trail — the smallest visual that proves the change, evidence consumed from the verify protocol (never re-collected), reversibility from the ADR test on the diff, glossary language throughout.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.
gsd-ns-review
Invoke this Pi skill with /skill:gsd-ns-review.