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/liteagents --skill self-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hamr0/liteagentsWrote 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/liteagents/self-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hamr0/liteagents/self-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hamr0/liteagents/self-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/hamr0/liteagents/self-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hamr0/liteagents/self-review.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 | $0.00020 | $0.02268 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00907 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00454 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00227 |
Grade A, and why
self-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 14d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- self-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Answer "verify what you delivered, what did you gloss over, what did I miss?"
about committed work since the last self-review, before /branch-review. The
orchestrator resolves the range and hands off; a spawned worker tries to
break it.
Guardrails
- Spawn a worker, mid tier stated explicitly (omitted inherits the parent's, not the balanced one; not cheapest/fastest either — judgment degrades there; never a vendor model name — this spec names the tier, you translate it to whatever your spawn tool calls its mid tier), and hand it this file's path — a worker has no skill text of its own. No delegation, no sub-spawning — every command the worker cites is one it ran itself.
- Ask and surface only. Never fixes anything. The user picks.
1. Orchestrator — resolve the range, then hand off
Dirty tree first: git status --porcelain prints any line → stop: the
tree is dirty (list the paths), /self-review reviews commits not the working
tree, commit then re-run. No worker spawned.
Hashes or a range given ($ARGUMENTS: one or more hashes, or <a>..<b>)
→ review exactly those commits, nothing else, on any branch: each hash via
git show <sha>, a range via git log <a>..<b> and git diff <a>..<b>.
Validate each hash, and both ends of a range, with
git rev-parse --verify <x>^{commit}; reject anything starting with -.
Hash/range mode never rewrites self-review-sha:.
Neither → on main/master, stop and ask for hashes or a range.
Otherwise the bookmark is one line, self-review-sha:, in /branch-review's
record (/self-review is its only writer):
grep '^self-review-sha:' .amp/remember/last-review.md || grep '^debrief-sha:' .amp/remember/last-review.md
No self-review-sha: line → the old debrief-sha: name, once (that is what
the || does; the new name wins if both exist). Fails either check, starts
with -, or the third exits 0 (an ancestor of main's merge-base is from an
already-merged branch) → no bookmark:
git rev-parse --verify <sha>
git merge-base --is-ancestor <sha> HEAD
git merge-base --is-ancestor <sha> $(git merge-base main HEAD)
Valid (third command exits non-zero) → range <sha>..HEAD. No bookmark →
whole branch, git merge-base main HEAD..HEAD. Range empty → "nothing new
since the last self-review," stop, no worker spawned. Otherwise hand off —
what was done, claims made (works / tested / done), files changed, the
baseline suite totals if known, loose ends only you can know (a peer session
not told, a silent open question, unshipped state) — and spawn one mid-tier
worker.
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.
- 14d ago Changed · +35 lines 4214f17a0739
- 15d ago First seen · 114 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 7a43fdd59cef
self-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hamr0/liteagents (25 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 2,268 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-10-01.
Other skills, from other repositories
issue-work-loop
Run Herdr loops for one open GitHub issue (resolve→review→fix) or an existing PR (review→lazy fixer) until CLEAN. Don't use for plain resolution without review, review-only/no-fix requests, backlog automation, or merging.
codebase-modernizer
Audit a stale, inherited, or messy codebase — deps, bugs, security, tests, CI, docs, UI/UX — then emit a phased, testable modernization plan. Read-only: plans upgrades, never applies them. Not for single-PR review, PRD-to-tasks, or UX-only audits.
code-review
Review or improve code — one skill, four modes: bug/security review (default), performance, clean-code audit, slop cleanup. Pass mode:review|perf|clean|cleanup or infer. Don't use for writing features or generating tests (use test-coverage).
ahk-review
Preview a code review against ticket/objective alignment, with deep semantic (name-vs-behavior) analysis. No tasks created, no harness tracking.
the-judge
Evidence-first pull request judge that reviews a PR and posts one consolidated GitHub review with inline comments via the gh CLI. Runs the repo's own deterministic checks first, researches current official docs before any claim about external libraries or APIs, then reviews correctness, security, structural quality…
best-practices
Apply modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities". Do NOT use for accessibility (use web-accessibility), SEO (use seo), performance (use…