GitHub Agentic Workflows is a GitHub CLI extension that lets developers define AI-assisted repository automation in Markdown and run it through GitHub Actions. It is intended for tasks requiring interpretation or reasoning, such as issue triage, pull-request review, CI investigation, documentation maintenance, and dependency analysis. The catalogue entries provide skills and agents for working with these workflows.
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 github/gh-aw --skill reviewer-protocolgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/github/gh-awWrote 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/github/gh-aw/reviewer-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/github/gh-aw/reviewer-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/github/gh-aw/reviewer-protocol/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/github/gh-aw/reviewer-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/github/gh-aw/reviewer-protocol.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 | $0.00013 | $0.00988 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00395 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00198 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-protocol 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.
Copies of this mod
8 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- reviewer-protocol — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- reviewer-protocol — 100% identical, 50 lines differ
- reviewer-protocol — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- reviewer-protocol — 100% identical, 158 lines differ
- reviewer-protocol — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- reviewer-protocol — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- reviewer-protocol — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- reviewer-protocol — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
When a team member has a Reviewer role (e.g., Tester, Code Reviewer, Lead), they may approve or reject work from other agents. On rejection, the coordinator enforces strict lockout rules to ensure the original author does NOT self-revise. This prevents defensive feedback loops and ensures independent review.
Patterns
Reviewer Rejection Protocol
When a team member has a Reviewer role:
- Reviewers may approve or reject work from other agents.
- On rejection, the Reviewer may choose ONE of:
- Reassign: Require a different agent to do the revision (not the original author).
- Escalate: Require a new agent be spawned with specific expertise.
- The Coordinator MUST enforce this. If the Reviewer says "someone else should fix this," the original agent does NOT get to self-revise.
- If the Reviewer approves, work proceeds normally.
Strict Lockout Semantics
When an artifact is rejected by a Reviewer:
- The original author is locked out. They may NOT produce the next version of that artifact. No exceptions.
- A different agent MUST own the revision. The Coordinator selects the revision author based on the Reviewer's recommendation (reassign or escalate).
- The Coordinator enforces this mechanically. Before spawning a revision agent, the Coordinator MUST verify that the selected agent is NOT the original author. If the Reviewer names the original author as the fix agent, the Coordinator MUST refuse and ask the Reviewer to name a different agent.
- The locked-out author may NOT contribute to the revision in any form — not as a co-author, advisor, or pair. The revision must be independently produced.
- Lockout scope: The lockout applies to the specific artifact that was rejected. The original author may still work on other unrelated artifacts.
- Lockout duration: The lockout persists for that revision cycle. If the revision is also rejected, the same rule applies again — the revision author is now also locked out, and a third agent must revise.
- Deadlock handling: If all eligible agents have been locked out of an artifact, the Coordinator MUST escalate to the user rather than re-admitting a locked-out author.
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 · 80 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 1cabc792d131
reviewer-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository github/gh-aw (5,435 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 988 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
watch-pr
Watch a GitHub pull request for CI status, reviews, comments, merge conflicts, and terminal states using the gh-watch extension. Use when the user wants to monitor a PR, wait for CI, or track PR progress.
ci-cd
CI/CD pipelines for GitHub Actions and Docker-based deployments — lint, test, build, push, deploy stages; environment secrets; branch-gated workflows; health-check rollbacks; and PM2/systemd service restarts.
deploy
Use when ready to ship — runs pre-push gates (lint, typecheck, build, tests, security sweep), commits, releases, and pushes. Standalone, never auto-invoked. Push always requires explicit confirmation. Trigger with /hyperflow:deploy, "ship it", "ready to push", "release", "cut a release", "deploy".
release-habit-hooks
Cut a new release of the habit-hooks packages. Use when asked to release, publish, or bump the version. Reviews what lands, enforces the in-sync versioning rule, validates the changelog, and drives the tag-triggered PyPI publish.
habit-hooks-review
Spawn a reviewer sub-agent to assess a change set against habit-hooks's coding principles. Use AFTER habit-hooks reports clean — habit-hooks catches structural smells; this catches what it cannot (correctness, tests, design, missed edge cases).
code-review-with-lsp
Code review with LSP-powered code intelligence. Uses MCP tools (diagnostics, hover, references, definition, symbols) for semantic code understanding, not just text grep.