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 harnessprotocol/harness-kit --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/harnessprotocol/harness-kitWrote 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/harnessprotocol/harness-kit/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/harnessprotocol/harness-kit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/harnessprotocol/harness-kit/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/harnessprotocol/harness-kit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/harnessprotocol/harness-kit/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00103 | $0.01589 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00636 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00318 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00159 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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 — 162 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
Overview
Produce structured code reviews for local branch changes, open PRs, or scoped paths. Designed to give concrete, actionable feedback — not a vague summary.
Core principles:
- Read-only. Never modify files or post comments anywhere. Output goes to the conversation only.
- Concrete over vague. Every concern includes a file path, line number if possible, and a specific issue. No "consider refactoring this" without saying exactly what and why.
- Severity matters. Distinguish production-breaking blockers from style nits. Don't inflate every concern to a warning.
- No praise inflation. "Straightforward rename, no concerns" is a complete review. Don't add empty praise.
Invocation Examples
/review # review current branch vs base branch
/review 123 # review PR #123 via gh pr diff
/review src/auth/ # review changes scoped to a path
/review main...HEAD # review with explicit git range
Workflow Order (MANDATORY)
You MUST follow this order. No skipping steps.
Step 1: Parse Input
Classify the argument:
| Input | Detection | Action |
|---|---|---|
| No argument | Empty / bare /review |
Review current branch vs base using git diff main...HEAD |
| PR number | Numeric string (e.g. 123) |
Fetch diff with gh pr diff 123 |
| Path filter | Looks like a file or directory path | Scope git diff main...HEAD -- <path> to that path |
| Git range | Contains ... or .. |
Use directly as the git range |
If gh CLI is not available and user provided a PR number: say "gh CLI not found — run brew install gh and authenticate with gh auth login to review PRs by number. For local branch review, run /review without arguments." Then stop.
Step 2: Gather Changes
Run the appropriate command to get the diff:
- Local branch:
git diff main...HEAD(orgit diff $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEADif the first fails) - PR number:
gh pr diff <number> - Path-scoped:
git diff main...HEAD -- <path>
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 162 lines · 103 tokens per session scan A 25540dd45263
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository harnessprotocol/harness-kit (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 103 tokens to every session and 1,589 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.
techdebt
Analyze Elixir/Phoenix technical debt — duplicates, refactoring opportunities, credo issues. Use when asked about code quality, cleanup, or what to improve.
great_cto
Use when the CTO describes a feature, task, or project goal. Orchestrates the full SDLC pipeline automatically based on project type.
skeptical-triage
Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of 4 extra LLM turns.
anti-patterns
Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that greatcto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect (pre-impl), pm (planning), senior-dev (impl), l3-support (post-incident).