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 griffinwork40/agent-afk --skill fix-prgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/griffinwork40/agent-afkWrote 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/griffinwork40/agent-afk/fix-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/griffinwork40/agent-afk/fix-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/griffinwork40/agent-afk/fix-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/griffinwork40/agent-afk/fix-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/griffinwork40/agent-afk/fix-pr.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 Tool Misuse · line 96 Tool parameters are crafted to achieve unintended or unsafe behavior. Parameter abuse can bypass intended safety checks (e.g. shell=True, --force, dangerous glob patterns).Fix: Validate all tool parameters against an allowlist. Reject dangerous parameter values (shell=True, --force, -rf /) and use safe defaults.
- low Excessive Agency · line 77 Skill's behavior or capabilities extend beyond its stated purpose. Scope creep allows an agent to perform actions unrelated to its documented functionality, increasing the attack surface.Fix: Limit the skill's scope to its documented purpose. Remove instructions that enable the agent to perform actions outside its stated functionality.
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 | $0.00180 | $0.04536 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00072 | $0.01814 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00907 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00454 |
Grade A, and why
fix-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 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- fix-pr — 97% identical, 6 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Sub-agent contract
/contract
fix-pr turns "review feedback / red CI on PR N" into a pushed fix commit with test evidence, using worktree isolation so the operator's working tree is never disturbed. The pipeline has three stages: harvest (collect feedback from all GitHub stores), triage (parallel read-only probes validate each issue independently), and fix (a single write agent applies pre-validated proposals). The parallel triage wave eliminates false-positive spec items and pre-computes fix proposals before any write begins, reducing cycling.
Skip when: the fix is a one-line suggestion the operator pointed at directly (apply inline); the PR is already green with all threads resolved (report and stop); or the work is local-only and unpushed (use /ship).
Phase 0 — Input gate & preflight (inline, fail closed)
Parse $ARGUMENTS:
pr— PR number or URL (required). If absent, stop: "fix-pr requires a PR number or URL."repo— repo path from--repo; default: current working directory's git root.no_push— from--no-push: produce the fix in a kept worktree + diff summary, no remote mutation.re_review— from--re-review: after pushing, re-trigger/review(top-level only — see Phase 6 guard).
Preflight (all inline bash; any failure → Blocked, do not improvise):
gh auth status— must be authenticated. Fail closed if not.gh pr view <pr> --json state,headRefName,headRepositoryOwner,isCrossRepository,mergeable,url— PR must be OPEN.- Fork guard: if
isCrossRepositoryis true and the authenticated account cannot push to the head repo, emit Blocked naming the fork and stop. Never attempt workarounds. - Record
head_branch— this is the ONLY branch this skill will ever push to.
Phase 1 — Feedback harvest (inline)
Reviewer feedback lives in three distinct GitHub stores — miss any one and the fix is silently partial. Harvest all three, then the gates:
- Inline review comments:
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<pr>/comments— comments anchored to a diff line (each carriespath/line/diff_hunk). - Review summary bodies:
gh pr view <pr> --json reviews— the top-level body of each APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / COMMENT review submission. - Issue-level conversation comments:
gh pr view <pr> --json comments(equivalentlygh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/<pr>/comments). A PR is also an issue, and its plain conversation comments ("also update the docs", "rename this before merge") live on the issues endpoint — thepulls/<pr>/commentsendpoint does NOT return them. Skipping this source is the known gap: reviewers who leave feedback as normal PR comments are otherwise dropped entirely, and a PR can have actionable conversation comments with zero inline review comments.
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 Changed 5f1591c9d921
- 3d ago Changed 0414de3e4b1e
- 26d ago Changed 26b49482e1c7
- 27d ago Changed 4d4122c32bfe
- 1mo ago Changed · +64 lines · +12 tokens per session 3eacfbf59325
- 1mo ago First seen · 113 lines · 168 tokens per session scan A c89030fd9ab9
fix-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository griffinwork40/agent-afk (61 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 180 tokens to every session and 4,536 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
hunk-launch-video
Produces Hunk videos by driving the real TUI headlessly in a PTY, compositing captioned 1080p frames in Chromium, and encoding with ffmpeg. Use for feature demos, workflow explainers, announcements, launch videos, and full-release roundups.
hunk-release
Prepares, publishes, verifies, and curates Hunk releases. Use for release metadata, benchmarks, tags, publishing, release videos, backports, or recovery.
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
otto-review-remediation
Handle trusted reviewers' change requests on Otto PRs.
git
Git and code hosting platform management — GitHub, GitLab, Codeberg, Forgejo. Zero barrier — install x-cmd and manage repos from the terminal. Use for "git", "github", "gitlab", "repo", "pull request", "code hosting".
comet-github-pr-review
A read-only review process for pull requests in Comet's GitHub repositories. A pull request is a proposed code change; the review checks its current code, related issue, comments, merge status, and automated checks.