Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to GabrielOnDelphi/Claude-Tools-for-Delphi. 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/GabrielOnDelphi/Claude-Tools-for-Delphi/main/.claude/skills/light-review-Critical/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GabrielOnDelphi/Claude-Tools-for-DelphiWrote 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/gabrielondelphi/claude-tools-for-delphi/light-review-critical)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gabrielondelphi/claude-tools-for-delphi/light-review-critical"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gabrielondelphi/claude-tools-for-delphi/light-review-critical/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/gabrielondelphi/claude-tools-for-delphi/light-review-critical"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gabrielondelphi/claude-tools-for-delphi/light-review-critical.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 | $0.00112 | $0.01982 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.00991 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00396 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00198 |
Grade A, and why
light-review-Critical 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/light-review-Critical — Delphi Post Review
Take the review findings already in this conversation and run them through a counter-analysis pass before fixing anything. Some of your suppositions WILL be false — this happens every review. Treat the prior findings as a hypothesis, not a verdict. This is a general skill, not necessarily only for Delphi code.
Precondition: if there are no review findings, list, or audit results in this conversation to work from, stop and tell the user: "No prior findings found in this session — there is nothing to counter-analyze." Do not invent findings to vet.
Step 0 — Say where the findings came from
Before arguing about anything, write one line per finding — or one line for the whole batch if they share an origin — naming who produced it:
- This same conversation, by you, earlier in this session.
- A sub-agent you launched from this session.
- An earlier, separate run that no longer exists — a report on disk, a file the user pasted in, another console's output.
This is not bookkeeping. It says how much the batch is worth before you spend an hour on it. A re-check inside the same session that produced the findings is the weakest of the four ways this has been measured: it caught 21.7% of planted errors against 28.6% for a brand new console reading the document cold, and it raised the wrong complaints from 3.1 to 4.4 per document (Song, arXiv:2603.12123).
So when the findings were produced in THIS conversation, say this to the user in one line, then carry on with the run:
"These findings were made earlier in this same session, which is the weakest window for checking them. A fresh console reading them cold does better. Say the word and I stop; otherwise I continue here."
Do not stall waiting for an answer — starting over costs him a paste and a new window, and that is his call to make, not a reason to leave the work sitting. If he does move it to a fresh console, nothing downstream breaks: the fixes get applied in that new console, and light-review-PostEdit at Step 5 verifies the edits of whichever session applied them.
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 Changed · +28 lines · +38 tokens per session 966fb7a0f808
- 7d ago Changed · +2 lines 9d02cfa3c08e
- 12d ago First seen · 85 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 1aaed30afefd
light-review-Critical is a skill published in the GitHub repository GabrielOnDelphi/Claude-Tools-for-Delphi (18 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MPL-2.0. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 1,982 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…