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 agentmods add skills/greglas75/zuvo/reviewnpx skills add greglas75/zuvo --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/greglas75/zuvoWrote 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/greglas75/zuvo/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/greglas75/zuvo/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/greglas75/zuvo/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00070 | $0.23753 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00035 | $0.11876 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.04751 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.02375 |
Grade A, and why
review 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 yesterday.
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 — 1,360 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
zuvo:review
Triage the diff, audit it through independent lenses, confidence-score every finding, run cross-model adversarial validation, and deliver a verdict. No separate "go" step required -- the review runs end to end.
Mandatory File Loading
PHASE 0 — Bootstrap (always, before reading any input)
1. ../../shared/includes/codesift-setup.md -- [READ | MISSING -> STOP]
This is the ONLY file loaded before reading the diff.
PHASE 0.5 — Classify (read diff, determine content type)
After CodeSift setup, read the git diff. Classify content type:
- prod-only: diff touches production files only (no
*.test.*,*.spec.*) - test-only: diff touches test files only
- mixed: diff touches both production and test files
Print: [CLASSIFIED] Diff type: {prod-only|test-only|mixed}
PHASE 1 — Conditional Load (based on diff type)
| Include | prod-only | test-only | mixed |
|---|---|---|---|
../../shared/includes/env-compat.md |
Full | Full | Full |
../../shared/includes/quality-gates.md |
CQ1-CQ40 section only* | Q1-Q25 section only** | Full |
../../shared/includes/cross-provider-review.md |
Full | Full | Full |
../../rules/cq-patterns.md or cq-patterns-core.md |
Per code type*** | SKIP | Per code type*** |
../../rules/cq-checklist.md |
TIER 1+ | SKIP | TIER 1+ |
../../rules/testing.md |
SKIP | Full | Full |
../../rules/security.md |
If security signals | SKIP | If security signals |
* CQ section only: Read from start of file to the ## Q1-Q25 heading. Skip Q section.
** Q section only: Read from ## Q1-Q25: Test Quality Gates heading to end of file. Skip CQ section.
*** cq-patterns loading rule: After Step 1 (classify code type), check the "High-Risk Gates by Code Type" table in cq-checklist.md. If the code type has <=10 relevant gates, load cq-patterns-core.md (~500 tok) instead of cq-patterns.md (~8.4K tok).
Print loaded files:
PHASE 1 — LOADED:
[list with READ/SKIP status per file and section qualifiers]
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 1,360 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A d3e4362266c1
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository greglas75/zuvo (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 23,753 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
kanso-commit
Use when the user asks to commit changes, stage their work, write commit messages, or split the working tree into logical commits.
commit
Create a user-requested Conventional Commit from the staged changes.
ring:generating-pr-descriptions
Generating pull request descriptions from git branch changes with automatic title generation, change-type detection, and smart analysis. Uses branch-only scope to avoid full history analysis. Use when preparing a PR for review. Skip when the PR is a single trivial commit or description already exists.
workflow
Run the complete 5-step development workflow: focus problem → prevent over-development → test-first (TDD) → document → smart commit. Use when starting a new feature, or when the user runs /workflow or asks for the full development flow.
smart-commit
Create clean Conventional Commits: inspect the diff, group related changes, run quality checks, and write type(scope) messages. Use when committing work, or when the user runs /smart-commit or asks to commit changes.
feature
Full per-feature pipeline: implement → testloop → evaluator challenge → coder feedback → document → commit.