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 | $0.00180 | $0.06094 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00090 | $0.03047 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00036 | $0.01219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00609 |
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 6d 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 — 374 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.
- 6d ago Changed · +7 lines 982cc67ac434
- 10d 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 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 180 tokens to every session and 6,094 once invoked, about $0.0009 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
backlog-reconcile
Use when auditing, reconciling, or verifying a repo's meta/BACKLOG.md Active queue against reality, "audit the backlog", "reconcile the board", "is the board still true", "dọn backlog", "rà soát backlog", "check board rows against their specs", or when a scheduled run asks for the backlog-reconcile audit of a repo.…
project-memory
Initialize, retrieve, and explicitly update the separate Rootloom Memory plugin's repository-owned architecture, risk, decision, and failure lessons. Use only when explicitly requested. Memory is experimental, advisory, and outside Rootloom Core.
setup-rootloom
Plan, install, inspect, update, or roll back Rootloom Personal Core in a user's Codex home. Supports Skills-only, guidance, and the recommended personal preset. Use when the user explicitly asks for a Rootloom setup plan, installation, configuration, bootstrap, repair, audit, status, update, reduction, rollback, or…
project-guidance
Create, refine, or validate repository guidance on explicit user request; preserve real-path scope, managed ownership, and unrelated content.
doc-drift
Use for the whole-estate doc audit, "run the doc-drift loop", "audit the docs against the code", "are the docs still true", "doc drift sweep", "check every doc claim", or a scheduled doc-audit cadence run. Enumerates every LIVING doc (README, MANUAL, AGENTS, WORKFLOW, architecture, patterns), verdicts each against the…
gauntlet-proof-audit
Use to audit the gauntlet records, "are the ROUNDS.md records honest", "verify the proof corpus", "check each run record against its evidence", "audit the gauntlet corpus", "is the gauntlet proof trustworthy", or a scheduled gauntlet-proof-audit cadence run. Enumerates every committed gauntlet run record…