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 review-depthgit 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/review-depth)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/review-depth"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/review-depth/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/review-depth"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hams-ollo/zen-agent-skills/review-depth.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 | $0.06168 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00052 | $0.02467 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.01234 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00617 |
Grade A, and why
review-depth 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 — 381 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
review-depth
Match review effort to what the change is worth. This skill runs before
house-review and decides one thing: how hard to look. It then hands
that decision to house-review, which does the actual reviewing.
It exists because effort was the one review parameter nothing set. house-review already bounds
how much it reads against the diff stat, but a one-line typo fix and a 900-line change across
scripts/, tests/, and a contract directory otherwise get the same treatment. That produces one of
two failures, and which one depends on the reviewer's mood rather than on the change: small changes
get over-reviewed until the author learns to skim reviews, or large risky ones get under-reviewed,
which is the failure that costs something.
It selects; it does not review. The rubric categories and the blocker / major / minor /
nit severities live in the review-quality lens, and the review
procedure lives in house-review. Nothing here restates either. Depth changes how much is read and
how exhaustively the rubric is swept. It never changes what a finding is or what proof it needs.
When to use
- Before any
house-reviewrun where the size or risk of the change is not obvious at a glance. - When the user asks how carefully something should be reviewed, or whether a change is worth a full review.
- When reviewing a whole branch, a backlog of commits, or a batch of agent worktrees, where the changesets differ enough that one effort setting is wrong for most of them.
- When the user names a depth ("quick look at this", "deep review please"). Detection is skipped, but running this skill still records the signals, so an override that was a mistake is visible.
When not to use
- To review anything. That is
house-review. This skill stops at the selection block and the handoff. - To decide whether a change should be reviewed at all. Every change is reviewed;
quickis the floor, not "skip it". - To gate a merge. A depth is not a verdict. Verdicts come from
house-reviewfindings, and readiness fromspec-plan-readinessorverifier-agent.
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 · +7 lines · -50 tokens per session 681ca34661d6
- 1mo ago Changed · +7 lines 982cc67ac434
- 2mo ago First seen · 367 lines · 180 tokens per session scan A ddea82d28378
review-depth 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 6,168 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…