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 Gentleman-Programming/gentle-pi --skill comment-writergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Gentleman-Programming/gentle-piWrote 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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/comment-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/comment-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/comment-writer/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/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/comment-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gentleman-programming/gentle-pi/comment-writer.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 | $0.00032 | $0.00546 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00218 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00109 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
gentle-ai-comment-writer 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to comment-writer — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When to Use
Load this skill whenever you write a comment that another human will read.
Use it for:
- GitHub PR or issue comments.
- Review feedback and requested changes.
- Maintainer replies.
- Slack, Discord, or async project updates.
Voice Rules
| Rule | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Be useful fast | Start with the actionable point. Do not recap the whole PR before feedback. |
| Be warm and direct | Sound like a thoughtful teammate, not a corporate bot. |
| Keep it short | Prefer 1 to 3 short paragraphs or a tight bullet list. |
| Explain why | Give the technical reason when asking for a change. |
| Avoid pile-ons | Comment on the highest-value issue, not every tiny preference. |
| Match target context language | Write in the target context language by default: Spanish issue/thread -> Spanish comment, English issue/thread -> English comment, mixed context -> target message language. If the user explicitly requests a language or tone, follow that request. Do not use the active persona as the source of truth for public comments. For Spanish comments, use neutral/professional Spanish by default unless the user or target context clearly calls for regional tone. |
| No em dashes | Use commas, periods, or parentheses instead. |
Comment Formula
<Direct observation or request>
<Why it matters, only if needed>
<Concrete next action>
Examples
Request change
Good approach overall. I'd split this into a separate commit because it mixes validation logic with UI wiring.
That keeps the reviewer's focus narrower and makes rollback cleaner if the integration fails.
Approve with a note
Approved. The scope is clear and the change is well-contained.
For the next PR, add links to the previous and following PRs so the chain stays navigable.
Ask for split
This PR exceeds the 400-line budget, so we need to split it or justify `size:exception`.
Suggested order: foundation + tests first, then integration, then docs. That gives each review a clear start and end.
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 · 75 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 9408ad044b57
gentle-ai-comment-writer is a skill published in the GitHub repository Gentleman-Programming/gentle-pi (804 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 546 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to comment-writer, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-team
Use when assigned a review or when an authored review boundary is reached.
pi-parity-review
Adversarially verify that a ported change is faithful to the original pi implementation (TS source + published npm build). Use after porting upstream pi changes, or standalone on any area of this repo ("is X faithful to pi?").
pi-go-review
Review ported Go code for idiomatic quality — that the port maximizes Go rather than transliterating TypeScript. Use after porting upstream pi changes, or standalone on any diff in this repo.
code-review
name: code-review description: Used when the user wants to review code, check quality, verify feature completeness, or needs to validate code implementation against Spec, DESIGN.md, and design mockups. Outputs a structured review report with evidence for each conclusion. version: 2.3.0 updated: 2026-07-16 requires: [].
aih-bugbounty
Scan open PRs and generated ECC/agent artifacts for high-coverage review risks before they are accepted. Use when a PR adds or changes agent bootloaders, Codex or Claude skills, MCP config, generated workflow commands, auto-learning instincts, repository review runbooks, or multi-agent review configuration; also use…
independent-review
Review a batch of changes as an independent reviewer who did not write them, before commit or push. Use after a set of edits, after an autonomous loop, or when the user asks for a pre-commit review.