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-changegit 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-change)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-change"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-change/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-change"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-change.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 | $0.00067 | $0.02867 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.01147 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00573 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00287 |
Grade A, and why
review-change scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 217 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Change
Quality gate: run every applicable review and skip the rest, then synthesize and classify one report. Findings only; never edit or refactor.
Turn contract
Load and verify the canonical Turn contract (11 boxes) before ending every turn. Skill-specific additions (receipt closeout, isolation rule, applicability) live here and in REVIEW_PROCESS.md. Missing reference → STOP.
For a final PR review, the turn is incomplete until this additional box passes:
✓ Decision: REVIEW-PASS + PR exists →
`bun scripts/review-receipt.mjs emit --pr <N> --head "$(git rev-parse HEAD)" …`
RUN and exited 0 — the script posts the SHA-bound comment, re-reads the PR
comments, and exits non-zero unless the newest exact-HEAD
`review-change:pass` marker is confirmed, so its exit code IS this box
When the receipt emitter runs, it also records the affecting-path scope
manifest (fix/286) so a foreign-only commit after the review (a session-log or
toolstate commit on a shared checkout) does not void the receipt at the merge
gate — pass --scope-base main (the unit's base ref) and the runtime derives
the manifest itself; never hand-assemble a digest. A receipt without a scope
manifest stays head-bound (legacy semantics).
The receipt closeout is a precondition of the report, not a follow-up: do not
print the fixed report block on a non-zero exit. A clean report without a
current receipt must not recommend /audit-pr.
For REVIEW-FAIL or NEEDS-DECISION, list every open finding ID in the closing
recommendation, joined with +; the review must never hand off only the first
finding.
Review-end turn boundary
On REVIEW-FAIL or NEEDS-DECISION, this skill ends at the report: it
never invokes /fold-findings, /execute-phase, /unit-lane or
/triage-issue — those are separate user-initiated invocations,
run in a fresh turn (a programmatic outer driver may compose the same
sequence in-turn, per REVIEW_PROCESS.md). The review's only mutations are the
ledger commit (persist step 11) and, on REVIEW-PASS with a PR, the
receipt comment (persist step 12); it never folds a finding, executes a phase,
or edits code. A REVIEW-FAIL/NEEDS-DECISION turn closes when the report
block is printed (report step 13).
What ships with it
7 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.
- 2d ago Changed · +1 lines 51af53c153c7
- 5d ago Changed 831483ed0fab
- 17d ago Changed · +7 lines 1ad151e71f8d
- 18d ago Changed · +6 lines d50fe6498e7a
- 23d ago Changed · +26 lines 9419b8ebbdb4
- 29d ago Changed 815dcc1ba3dd
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines dd8870ef0390
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines 46d99ab347ca
- 1mo ago Changed d9460103474c
- 1mo ago First seen · 173 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 673d09396b73
review-change is a skill published in the GitHub repository gtrabanco/agentic-workflow (22 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 2,867 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
argumentation
Construct well-structured arguments using the hypothesis-argument-example triad. Covers formulating falsifiable hypotheses, building logical arguments (deductive, inductive, analogical, evidential), providing concrete examples, and steelmanning counterarguments. Use when writing or reviewing PR descriptions that…
cross-review-project
Conduct a structured cross-project code review between two Claude Code instances via the cross-review-mcp broker. Each agent reads its own codebase, reviews the peer's code, and engages in evidence-backed dialogue — with QSG scaling laws enforcing review quality through minimum bandwidth constraints and phase-gated…
create-pull-request
Create and manage pull requests using GitHub CLI. Covers branch preparation, writing PR titles and descriptions, creating PRs, handling review feedback, and merge/cleanup workflows. Use when proposing changes from a feature or fix branch for review, merging completed work into the main branch, requesting code review…
coding-guidance-python
Python implementation and review skill. Use when writing, modifying, refactoring, or reviewing Python code, especially production Python that needs clear contracts, type safety, testability, and maintainable module boundaries. Portable across Python repos and tooling stacks.
code-review
Review code for best practices and potential issues.
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…