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 hamr0/agentic-toolkit --skill branch-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hamr0/agentic-toolkitWrote 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/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/branch-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/branch-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hamr0/agentic-toolkit/branch-review.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 5.1 | $0.00014 | $0.05003 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.02501 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01001 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00500 |
Grade A, and why
branch-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 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to branch-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 357 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
name: branch-review description: Review a branch before merge [target] [level] argument-hint: [file, branch (e.g. main), range (main..HEAD), or empty] [effort level] allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Agent, Bash(git diff:), Bash(git log:), Bash(git show:), Bash(git status:), Bash(git grep:), Bash(git rev-parse:), Bash(git merge-base:), Bash(rg:) disable-model-invocation: true
Pre-merge review gate. Two stages — general review then a full security audit — followed by an adversarial verify pass. It never edits code: it reports findings and hands them back. Fixing is a separate, separately authorized action.
Only Critical and High findings block the merge. Everything else is
appended to the fix ledger (.amp/remember/fix-ledger.md) — a local,
cumulative list, living beside MEMORY.md, that /refactor (no arguments)
works through between features. Like its neighbours it is a private working
artifact, usually gitignored; it persists across reviews, it is not a
deliverable. The report is blockers plus the ledger count, so a review
converges instead of surfacing fresh nits every run. This command never runs
/refactor itself — it nudges, the way /stash nudges /remember.
Run this before /release. /release will refuse to run without a review
at the current HEAD SHA.
Guardrails
- Spawn a worker and explicitly select your tool's mid tier. State the tier on the spawn — do not omit it and rely on a default. An omitted tier inherits the parent's tier, which is not the same thing as the balanced one. Pick the judgment-capable tier that is cheaper and faster than your top reasoning tier. Not the cheapest/fastest tier: on judgment work it measurably degrades (misclassification rates several times higher). Choose by tier, not by a vendor model name copied from this file — names drift, and this command ships to several tools. Fall back to running inline if your tool has no subagent mechanism.
- Escalate, never assume. Anything you cannot decide, cannot verify, or that this spec does not cover → stop and report it to the orchestrator (the main session). Never improvise, never widen scope, never fix a side issue you noticed along the way.
- The worker does the work itself — no delegation. The review subagent
must not spawn subagents of its own. Everything it reports has to be
something it read, ran, or grepped with its own tool calls: a relayed "I
executed X" from a sub-worker is hearsay, and replacing hearsay with evidence
is the entire point of this command. A review that delegates its work is a
review of a report. (Same rule
/securitycarries inside stage 2.) - No edits — two exceptions. You have no authorization to change code,
even for a finding you are certain about. Report it. The only files you may
write are
.amp/remember/fix-ledger.md(append bullets; never rewrite or delete) and.amp/remember/last-review.md(overwrite; the review record described at the end of this file). - Prove it with two checks, because neither sees what the other does.
git status --porcelain, at start and again before you report, proves no tracked file changed — that is the "never edits code" guarantee, and it is the one that matters. It cannot police your own two writes:.amp/is normally gitignored, so porcelain stays empty whether you wrote the allowed files, wrote nothing, or overwroteMEMORY.md.git status --ignoreddoes not close it either — it collapses to!! .amp/, the directory, not the files. So also takemd5sum .amp/remember/*before you start and again before you report, and show the comparison: onlyfix-ledger.mdandlast-review.mdmay differ.
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 First seen · 357 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 7ae8946963e2
branch-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hamr0/agentic-toolkit (22 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 5,003 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to branch-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
refactorlib-cc
Audit a codebase for handcrafted code that duplicates functionality already available in the project's dependencies. Reads package.json, launches parallel exploration agents, verifies replacement feasibility, and produces a structured refactor plan. Audit only -- does not execute changes.
triage
Verify an open GitHub issue or PR against the current code and decide its fate: implement, keep, or close with a factual comment. Use when the user asks to triage, verify, check, handle, or clean up an issue, a PR, or the tracker.
verify-no-regressions
Verify no behavioral regressions after implementation. Spawns parallel subagents for semantic diff review + test execution. Use when: user says "verify no regressions", "check for regressions", "make sure nothing broke".
Receiving Code Review
Guidelines for analyzing and applying peer code review feedback objectively.
Requesting Code Review
Preparing PR summaries, diff highlights, and verification proof for peer review.
guardian
A guide for deciding how to organize commits, branches, merges, and pull requests. A pull request is a proposed code change submitted for review before it is merged.