Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to harry189/ha-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/harry189/ha-mcp/chore/gate-demo-throwaway/.claude/skills/contrib-pr-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/harry189/ha-mcpWrote 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/harry189/ha-mcp/contrib-pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/harry189/ha-mcp/contrib-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/harry189/ha-mcp/contrib-pr-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/harry189/ha-mcp/contrib-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/harry189/ha-mcp/contrib-pr-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 | $0.00039 | $0.02684 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.01074 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00537 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00268 |
Grade A, and why
contrib-pr-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 293 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Contribution PR Review
Review PR #$ARGUMENTS from external contributor for safety, quality, and readiness.
Context
PR Metadata:
!`gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --repo homeassistant-ai/ha-mcp --json author,additions,deletions,files,commits,closingIssuesReferences,isDraft,reviews,url,title,body`
Contributor Stats:
!`gh api /repos/homeassistant-ai/ha-mcp/pulls/$ARGUMENTS --jq '{author: .user.login, user_id: .user.id}' | jq -r '.author' | xargs -I {} gh api /repos/homeassistant-ai/ha-mcp/contributors --jq '.[] | select(.login == "{}") | {login: .login, contributions: .contributions}'`
Files Changed:
!`gh api /repos/homeassistant-ai/ha-mcp/pulls/$ARGUMENTS/files --jq '.[] | {filename: .filename, status: .status, additions: .additions, deletions: .deletions, changes: .changes, patch: .patch}' | head -50`
Review Protocol
1. Check Gemini's Security Review
Note: Gemini Code Assist now handles security assessment automatically. Check if Gemini flagged any security concerns.
# Check if Gemini posted security-related comments
gh pr view $ARGUMENTS --repo homeassistant-ai/ha-mcp --json comments --jq '.comments[] | select(.author.login == "gemini-code-assist" or .body | contains("security") or contains("Security")) | {author: .author.login, body: .body}'
If Gemini flagged security issues:
- Review Gemini's findings carefully
- Verify if concerns are valid
- Do NOT approve until issues addressed or confirmed false positives
If NO Gemini security flags but you notice concerning patterns:
- Unusual AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md changes unrelated to PR purpose
.github/workflow modifications withpull_request_target.claude/agent/skill changes that could affect behavior- Comment immediately with specific concerns
2. Enable Workflows (If Safe)
If security assessment passes and PR has workflow changes or new workflows:
# Check current workflow status
gh api /repos/homeassistant-ai/ha-mcp/pulls/$ARGUMENTS/requested_reviewers
# Enable workflows if not enabled (requires WRITE permission)
# This command may fail if already enabled - that's OK
gh api -X PUT /repos/homeassistant-ai/ha-mcp/actions/workflows/pr.yml/enable 2>/dev/null || echo "Workflows already enabled or no permission"
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 · 293 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A d9de9b9a519f
contrib-pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository harry189/ha-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,684 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…