Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/guimatheus92/pr-reviewnpx agentmods add skills/guimatheus92/pr-review/acceptanceWrote 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/guimatheus92/pr-review/acceptance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/guimatheus92/pr-review/acceptance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/guimatheus92/pr-review/acceptance/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/guimatheus92/pr-review/acceptance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/guimatheus92/pr-review/acceptance.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00080 | $0.01262 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00505 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00252 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
acceptance 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 1mo 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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing a PR review
The checklist is a program, not prose. pr-review verify renders one row per
invariant in INVARIANTS.md, always the full list, and exits 2 on any FAIL —
so there is no version of this task where an item gets skipped by accident.
Your job is the judgment: read the FAIL rows, find out why, report honestly.
Do not hand-check the guarantees. If you find yourself reading a PR in the browser to see whether a comment is inline, you have left the deterministic path. Fix the check instead.
Steps
Run these in order. Do not skip a step because the previous one looked fine.
-
Build.
npm run buildverifyand the matrix drivedist/cli.cjs, notsrc/. A stale bundle audits code that is not the code under test. -
Review the PR.
node dist/cli.cjs review <pr-url> # posts node dist/cli.cjs review <pr-url> --dry-run # previewsLong runs: add
--detachand pollnode dist/cli.cjs status <run-id>. -
Audit it.
node dist/cli.cjs verify --pr <pr-url>Exit 0 = every invariant PASS or SKIP. Exit 1 = the audit could not be completed (the PR read-back failed) — report that as "not verified", never as "clean". Exit 2 = at least one FAIL, and a FAIL is a product defect until proven otherwise.
--offlineskips the live PR read on purpose (every row that needs it reports SKIP, and the exit stays 0);--jsonfor machine use. -
The matrix — all three providers, every time.
npm run acceptance # 3 providers x 2 runtimes + the file-list and no-fetch gatesGitHub alone is not a result. Azure DevOps and GitLab have full providers and zero non-stubbed coverage anywhere else in this repo, so a matrix narrowed to
--provider githubproves the one path that was already proven. Narrow it only to re-run a single failing cell while fixing it, and re-run the whole thing before you call the work done.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 100 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 6899a8cb5167
acceptance is a skill published in the GitHub repository guimatheus92/pr-review (3 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 1,262 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 2026-09-08.
Other skills, from other repositories
e2e-testing
Guide for running end-to-end tests of the Qwen Code CLI, including headless mode, MCP server testing, and API traffic inspection. Use this skill whenever you need to verify CLI behavior with real model calls, reproduce user-reported bugs end-to-end, test MCP tool integrations, or inspect raw API request/response…
test-conversion-reviewer
Reviewer for converting unit tests to browser tests for Project Bedrock. Invoke this when the user needs to review their work while removing complex Browser dependencies from tests.
verify
Exercise the real app/API/CLI and collect observable evidence; tests alone do not count as end-to-end verification.
webapp-testing
Start/reuse a local app, wait for readiness, inspect rendered state/console/network, act from observed selectors, and verify with evidence.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
winui-ui-testing
Write and run automated UI tests for Windows desktop apps (WinUI 3, WPF, WinForms, Win32) with the winapp ui harness: one batch script, assertions, input, file pickers, dialogs, screenshots, locally or in Windows Sandbox. Use when asked for UI tests or to verify a feature end to end.