Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to gke-labs/kube-agents. 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/gke-labs/kube-agents/main/.agents/skills/review-preflight/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gke-labs/kube-agentsWrote 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/gke-labs/kube-agents/review-preflight)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gke-labs/kube-agents/review-preflight"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gke-labs/kube-agents/review-preflight/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/gke-labs/kube-agents/review-preflight"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gke-labs/kube-agents/review-preflight.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Excessive Agency · line 111 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
- medium Agent Snooping · line 111 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00044 | $0.03044 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.01522 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00609 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00304 |
Grade A, and why
review-preflight scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 222 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Task
Get every pre-PR review pass into a context that did not write the change, then merge what comes back into the list that becomes the pull request's Self-Review section.
This skill is plumbing. It holds no review method — review-adversarial
and review-docs-drift own that — and it does not state the
requirement: "Pull Request Hygiene" in AGENTS.md does, and that list wins if
this file disagrees with it.
.claude/commands/pr-preflight.md is the Claude Code
wrapper. Any harness can follow this file directly.
Procedure
1. Fix the diff range
One range, shared by every pass. Fetch the base first — a base you have not refreshed silently widens the range with commits that already merged, and the passes then review other people's work as though it were yours:
# The remote pointing at gke-labs/kube-agents is not reliably called `upstream`, and
# on a clone of the upstream repository rather than a fork it is `origin`. Find it.
BASE_BRANCH=main # or the branch you will target
BASE_REMOTE=$(git remote | while read -r r; do
case "$(git remote get-url "$r")" in *gke-labs/kube-agents*) echo "$r"; break;; esac
done)
# HTTPS, not SSH. The fallback fires when no remote matches — a plain clone of a fork,
# which every open pull request here comes from — and that is where a sandbox or a CI
# runner has no key. The repository is public, so HTTPS needs no credential at all.
: "${BASE_REMOTE:=https://github.com/gke-labs/kube-agents.git}"
git fetch "$BASE_REMOTE" "+refs/heads/$BASE_BRANCH:refs/kube-agents-base/$BASE_BRANCH" || {
echo "base fetch failed — stop here rather than reviewing against a stale base" >&2
exit 1
}
BASE=refs/kube-agents-base/$BASE_BRANCH
git diff --stat "$BASE"...HEAD # three-dot: against the merge base, not the base tip
Three-dot keeps base-branch drift out of everyone's scope. If the fetch fails, stop and say so: there is no safe fallback, because the wrong base fails in the direction that hides findings.
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.
- 8d ago Changed · +2 lines b1f9db91ee4d
- 12d ago First seen · 220 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 09a29a8359be
review-preflight is a skill published in the GitHub repository gke-labs/kube-agents (53 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 3,044 once invoked, about $0.0002 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…