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 gyuch-an02/claude-omakase --skill quick-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gyuch-an02/claude-omakaseWrote 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/gyuch-an02/claude-omakase/quick-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gyuch-an02/claude-omakase/quick-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gyuch-an02/claude-omakase/quick-review/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/gyuch-an02/claude-omakase/quick-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gyuch-an02/claude-omakase/quick-review.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00312 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00156 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00062 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00031 |
Grade A, and why
quick-review 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 11d 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.
What it actually says
Quick Review
Give fast, focused code review. No praise. No scope creep.
Output format
path/file.ts:42: 🔴 bug: null dereference if `user` is undefined. Add `user?.` guard.
path/file.ts:67: 🟡 perf: re-creates regex on every call. Move outside function.
path/file.ts:81: 🔵 style: misleading name `data` — call it `userRecords`.
Severity tags:
- 🔴 bug — correctness issue, will cause failures
- 🟡 perf / security / logic — important but not immediately breaking
- 🔵 style / naming — only if it changes meaning or causes confusion
Rules
- Read the full diff before commenting
- Flag only real issues — no "consider adding tests" unless tests are clearly missing for a critical path
- If a fix is obvious, state it in one line. If complex, explain why in ≤ 2 sentences.
- Skip formatting nits unless they change meaning
- End with total count:
3 issues (1 bug, 1 perf, 1 style)
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 31 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 056f0a9912b6
quick-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository gyuch-an02/claude-omakase (8 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 312 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code
Use BEFORE generating, refactoring, reviewing, or debugging code. Trigger phrases include "write a function/script/class for X", "review this code/diff/PR", "refactor this", "debug this error", "is this implementation correct", "what's wrong with this code", "improve this code", "translate from X to Y", or any prompt…
pr-comment-formatter
Formats aggregated reviewer findings into a single structured PR comment with collapsed sections per checker, severity icons, and a top summary. Use when aggregating security, performance, or test findings for a PR, or when the orchestrator assembles a final report. Does NOT fetch diffs or call the GitHub API — that…
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
continual-learning
Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt…
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.
security-review
Perform a focused security review of pending git changes to identify high-confidence security vulnerabilities with real exploitation potential. Use this skill when the user asks for a security review, security audit, vulnerability scan, or wants to check pending changes on a branch for security issues before merging.…