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 hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills --skill house-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skillsWrote 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/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/house-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/house-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/house-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/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/house-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/house-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 | $0.00130 | $0.03616 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00052 | $0.01446 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00723 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00362 |
Grade A, and why
house-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 7d 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 — 245 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
house-review
A house-style code review with an explicit rubric and severities. It reads a change, applies the
review-quality lens, and writes a structured review. It is
report-only: it never edits or commits. Reconciling the findings is the author's call, handled
by the human, /simplify, or fix-batch.
It is named for the house rubric it applies rather than for the act of reviewing, which also keeps it clear of the review commands several harnesses ship built in: a skill cannot resolve a namespace collision by asserting it is different, so the name avoids one instead. It composes a swappable lens (the moonray pattern: a reusable review "shot" a workflow composes, with findings validated before they are reported), so the review bar lives in one editable file and future quality skills can reuse it.
What it produces
A severity-ranked markdown review: a one-line verdict, then findings ordered blocker to nit,
each with a file:line anchor, an exact quote of the cited code, a stable signature, the issue, why
it matters, and a concrete suggested fix. When nothing substantive survives validation, it says so
plainly.
Design choices
Settled decisions (resolved with the user); these are not up for re-litigation:
- Rubric and severities live in the lens,
review-quality.md: eight categories, and theblocker/major/minor/nitscheme. Edit the lens to retune the bar; it is swappable likehouse-style.md. - Report-only. The skill never edits or commits. Each finding carries a concrete fix in text.
- Findings are validated before reporting (the lens's govern/revalidate step). A confident false positive costs more than a missed nit.
- Validation is checked, not trusted. Every finding's quoted evidence is resolved against the file before the finding is reported, and one that resolves nowhere is dropped rather than hedged. The rule and its branches live in the lens; Step 4 below applies them.
- Every reported finding carries a signature, defined by the lens, so the same defect found by two reviewers or across three runs is one countable defect. This skill emits it and reads nothing from it.
- Three review modes: an explicit path scope reviews named files in full; an explicit base or
range reviews that range as given, winning over the default and reported as supplied rather than
resolved; otherwise the default is the branch vs its merge-base with the default branch (with a
working-tree fallback), reusing
pr-describe's changeset logic. A path scope and a range together narrow the second mode rather than producing a fourth.
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.
- 7d ago Changed · +2 lines · -50 tokens per session 98acf4669c58
- 1mo ago Changed · +7 lines cc833cc340ce
- 2mo ago First seen · 236 lines · 180 tokens per session scan A 4638d570a5ad
house-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 130 tokens to every session and 3,616 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Use when explicitly invoked to review a branch diff (or any diff or files pointed at) with a find-only subagent covering rubric and conventions, change conformance against the AC-N and their runtime-verification evidence, and documentation consistency — one plain-text verdict that reaches lgtm only when no dimension…
gsd-ns-review
Invoke this Pi skill with /skill:gsd-ns-review.
kiro-review
Review a task implementation against approved specs, task boundaries, and verification evidence. Use after an implementer finishes a task, after remediation, or before accepting a task as complete.
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…
review
Review code changes for security, performance, bugs, and quality. Reviews staged changes, unstaged changes, specific commits, or PR-ready diffs.
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…