gcx is a command-line tool that lets people and AI coding agents manage and inspect Grafana Cloud, Enterprise, and open-source instances. It provides access to dashboards, alerts, SLOs, metrics, logs, and traces, with workflows for alert investigation, dashboard management, GitOps, and observability setup. Its catalogue entries provide agent instructions and extensions for using gcx.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to grafana/gcx. 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/grafana/gcx/main/.claude/skills/review-pr/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/grafana/gcxWrote 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/grafana/gcx/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/grafana/gcx/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/grafana/gcx/review-pr/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/grafana/gcx/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/grafana/gcx/review-pr.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
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 →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 141 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00095 | $0.03325 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.01663 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00665 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00332 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 today.
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 — 296 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing a gcx pull request
Use this skill to review work you did not write. It owns the report: what goes in it, in what order, and when to stop.
It defines no checks of its own. Run the checks where they already live:
.claude/skills/integrate-with-gcx/references/self-review.md. Read Evidence discipline first. It sets what a finding may conclude. Then run the triggers that fire for the diff. T12 is the over-engineering rubric. T5 covers code that repeats something the repo already has.- AGENTS.md, for the compliance hierarchy. Check all four levels in order.
Authors run the same triggers before they push. Assume they did. Treat what you find as missed, not as dismissed.
Two passes, one set of findings
Run both passes, then combine them:
/code-review, for correctness bugs. Do not pass--comment. The findings must return to you instead of going straight to the PR, or you have nothing left to combine. It signs off with "no--commentargument was provided, so stopping here without posting" — that is it handing findings back, not the end of your review. Do not repeat the line or stop on it.- The triggers above that fire for this diff, plus the compliance hierarchy.
Reconcile the two sets before you report anything. Remove duplicates. Keep whichever version of a finding states the failure more precisely.
The two passes can disagree. One calls a line a bug and the other calls the same line correct. Settle it against the code and report one conclusion. Never report both and leave the author to decide.
The same skill runs on a developer's machine and in the review workflow. A PR gets the same treatment either way.
What blocks a merge here
The severity split matters more than any single finding. It decides what the author must act on. Reserve the blocking tier for four things.
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.
- today Changed · +29 lines 756ff9e3be7e
- 10d ago First seen · 267 lines · 95 tokens per session scan A 8fa6416d3088
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository grafana/gcx (594 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 3,325 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…
github-contributor
End-to-end playbook for shipping high-quality pull requests to open-source projects you don't maintain — discovery, CONTRIBUTING compliance, PR-size check, minimal-diff implementation, PR description with AI-assisted disclosure, conflict resolution, and post-submission maintainer interaction. Use whenever creating…
revdiff
Review diffs, files, and documents with inline annotations in a TUI overlay, or answer questions about revdiff usage, configuration, themes, and keybindings. Opens revdiff in agterm/tmux/zellij/herdr/kitty/wezterm/cmux/ghostty/iterm2/emacs-vterm, captures annotations, and addresses them. Works in git, hg, and jj repos…
write-pr
Reference standards for writing pull request titles and descriptions in the tldraw repository, plus the pre-flight comment sweep over the diff. Use as supporting guidance when another skill or workflow needs PR content standards, not as the user-facing create/update PR workflow.