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/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-implementationnpx skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-implementationgit 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-implementation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-implementation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-implementation.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 | $0.00066 | $0.01200 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00033 | $0.00600 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00240 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
review-implementation 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 4d 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 — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Implementation (internal scope/classification engine)
The classification engine the review/audit skills compose: it consumes the
synthesized findings table (the fused output of the applicable per-axis
passes), verifies every applicable axis is represented, and returns the
classified decision table — then stops. Never refactors or edits code. It owns
the scope/axis-coverage contract and the classification rubric (the
current-unit contract + routing) that review-change, audit-pr, and
product-audit reference instead of restating.
It does not scan the diff: every finding concern has exactly one owning
pass (see the axis ownership map) — the per-axis passes
(review-code, review-security, review-verify, review-perf,
design/a11y/brand/SEO) find, and this engine classifies. No broad findings
scan here.
When to use
- Invoked by
review-change(the user-facing review entry) as its classification engine, over the fused findings table. - The audit skills reference its rubric and coverage contract.
Scope
The caller's scope statement (the branch diff vs. the default branch, or the passed path/glob) is authoritative; the synthesized table was gathered over it. State the scope at the top of the classified report.
Step 0 — Discover the project (always first)
Per the agent guide's Workflow conventions + documentation map, read
what THIS skill needs: the architecture/layering rules, the testing philosophy,
and any runtime/platform, security, money, i18n/SEO/a11y and bundle rules. Pull
the project's specific risk axes from its guardrail skills where present. The
FIND.md axis map is the default; the project's docs refine which axes are
applicable.
Step 1 — Verify axis coverage (the synthesized table)
For the declared scope, confirm every applicable axis is represented in the
synthesized findings table — one finding owner per axis, per the FIND.md
map: an axis the change touches that the table says nothing about is a
missing-axis finding (axis coverage), not a silent pass. Overlapping
signals from different passes on the same defect collapse into one row during
synthesis — the table must contain neither duplicates nor gaps. State which
axes were applicable and confirm each appears.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 109 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A abd082144300
review-implementation is a skill published in the GitHub repository gtrabanco/agentic-workflow (20 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 1,200 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
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-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-dependency-confusion
Deep-dive offensive methodology for dependency confusion and namespace attacks across all major package ecosystems. Covers npm scope confusion exploiting the gap between public and private scoped packages and .npmrc misconfigurations where registry mappings fail to pin internal scopes exclusively. Addresses PyPI…
offensive-phishing
Phishing campaign execution methodology for authorized red team engagements. Covers end-to-end campaign lifecycle: infrastructure provisioning (GoPhish, SMTP relay configuration, domain acquisition and aging, SPF/DKIM/DMARC alignment), payload delivery vectors (Office macro weaponization, HTA droppers, ISO/IMG…
offensive-active-directory
Active Directory attack methodology for internal network red team engagements. Covers reconnaissance (BloodHound, PowerView, ADExplorer), credential abuse (Kerberoasting, ASREProasting, NTLM relay, LLMNR/NBT-NS poisoning), privilege escalation (ACL abuse, GPO abuse, unconstrained/constrained delegation), lateral…