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 HartBrook/lookagain --skill lookagain-output-formatgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HartBrook/lookagainWrote 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/hartbrook/lookagain/lookagain-output-format)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hartbrook/lookagain/lookagain-output-format"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hartbrook/lookagain/lookagain-output-format/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/hartbrook/lookagain/lookagain-output-format"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hartbrook/lookagain/lookagain-output-format.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 | $0.00028 | $0.00293 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00147 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00059 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
lookagain-output-format 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 9d 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.
What it actually says
Code Review Output Format
When performing code reviews, output findings in this exact JSON structure:
{
"pass_summary": "string - Brief summary of review scope and key findings",
"issues": [
{
"severity": "must_fix | should_fix | suggestion",
"title": "string - Brief title (max 100 chars)",
"description": "string - Detailed explanation of the issue",
"file": "string - Relative file path",
"line": "number | null - Line number if applicable",
"suggested_fix": "string - How to fix it"
}
]
}
Severity Definitions
must_fix:
- Security vulnerabilities
- Bugs causing runtime errors
- Data loss/corruption risks
- Breaking API changes
should_fix:
- Performance issues
- Poor error handling
- Missing edge cases
- Maintainability concerns
suggestion:
- Minor refactoring
- Documentation gaps
- Style improvements
Rules
- Output ONLY valid JSON (no markdown wrapper)
- Include all fields for each issue
- Use
nullfor optional fields (likeline) when not applicable - Keep titles concise and descriptive
- Make suggested_fix actionable
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 52 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 791d06ae0d28
lookagain-output-format is a skill published in the GitHub repository HartBrook/lookagain (10 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 293 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
skill-audit
Audit codebases for quality, consistency, and broken patterns — use for pre-release or tech debt review.
review
5-pass structured code review — correctness, security, performance, readability, consistency.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
second-pass-review
Independent audit of sanitized specs in workspace/output/. Three parallel LLM-based reviewer roles check structural leakage, content contamination, and behavioral completeness. Run AFTER Layer 5 sanitization, BEFORE implementation handoff.
check-pr
Read-only inspection of a single GitHub PR lifecycle — checks CI, review threads, description sync, and mergeability, and returns PASS or FAIL with per-gate findings. Never invokes the merge button. Use when verifying a PR is ready to merge, polling lifecycle progress, checking mergeability, or babysitting a GitHub PR…