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 gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-brandgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflowWrote 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/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-brand)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-brand"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-brand/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/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-brand"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-brand.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 | $0.00070 | $0.00700 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00035 | $0.00350 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
review-brand 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 5d 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Brand & Copy (internal)
Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any
agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits,
never refactors.
Scope
The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.
Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)
- ✓ Read the project's brand doc first (e.g.
docs/brand/BRAND.md) — cite the rule for every finding; n/a all items if the project has none and say so - ✓ Tone of changed copy matches the declared voice (cite the guideline violated)
- ✓ Product/domain terms used consistently with the declared glossary (same concept, same word, same capitalization)
- ✓ No forbidden/deprecated phrases from the brand doc
- ✓ Claims are honest: limits, restrictions, and reductions the code enforces are disclosed in the copy (an undisclosed limitation is a major finding — repo hard rule)
- ✓ Error/empty-state copy is actionable (says what happened and what to do), not blame-y
- ✓ Consistency across the changed surface and its siblings (same action labeled the same way everywhere)
- ✓ Placeholder/lorem text absent from the diff
Materiality bar
Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project
explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence.
Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference
with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios.
An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed
change — never pad the table.
Return exactly
REVIEW BRAND — scope: <scope>
| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what> | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |
Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Decision: PASS | FAIL
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.
- 5d ago Changed · +9 lines 1a068cb6a45a
- 9d ago First seen · 66 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A 7c71d007f698
review-brand is a skill published in the GitHub repository gtrabanco/agentic-workflow (21 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 700 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
think-like-me
Personal engineering rules and reasoning patterns the user has curated over time. Consult BEFORE writing, modifying, debugging, or designing any technical feature — rules often cover domain-specific gotchas (e.g., mobile audio timers need background mode) that generic answers miss. Also triggers on /learn-this, "learn…
offensive-mitigations
Security mitigation reference and bypass catalog: ASLR, DEP/NX, RELRO, stack canaries, CFI, sandboxing, seccomp. Covers both detection of enabled mitigations and known bypass techniques. Use when assessing target hardening or planning exploit mitigation bypasses.
offensive-k8s-attacks
Kubernetes cluster attack techniques covering the full attack lifecycle from initial foothold in a pod to cluster-wide compromise. Covers service account token theft and impersonation, RBAC misconfiguration exploitation including wildcard permissions and privilege escalation via role binding, direct etcd access for…
offensive-exploit-development
Exploit development operational guide: environment setup, debugging workflow, PoC development lifecycle, writing reliable exploits, using pwntools/pwndbg, heap exploitation techniques, and weaponization considerations. Use when actively developing exploits or setting up an exploit dev environment.
offensive-advanced-redteam
Comprehensive red team operations methodology covering full engagement lifecycle from planning through reporting. Addresses engagement scoping and rules of engagement negotiation, multi-tier C2 infrastructure design with redirectors and domain fronting, malleable traffic profiles and beacon tradecraft, OPSEC…
offensive-crypto-attacks
Systematic methodology for identifying and exploiting cryptographic implementation weaknesses in real-world applications. Covers padding oracle attacks against CBC-mode ciphers with PKCS7 padding (Vaudenay's original attack through modern padbuster automation), ECB mode exploitation including block cut-and-paste and…