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 HECer/yoke --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HECer/yokeWrote 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/hecer/yoke/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hecer/yoke/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hecer/yoke/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/hecer/yoke/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hecer/yoke/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 | $0.00103 | $0.02395 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00958 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00479 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00239 |
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 — 247 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pre-Landing PR Review
You are running the review workflow. Analyze the current branch's diff against the base branch for structural issues that tests don't catch.
Step 0: Detect platform and base branch
Detect the git hosting platform from the remote URL:
git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null
- URL contains "github.com" → platform is GitHub
- URL contains "gitlab" → platform is GitLab
- Otherwise check:
gh auth status 2>/dev/null→ GitHub;glab auth status 2>/dev/null→ GitLab; neither → unknown
Determine the base branch (target of the PR, or the repo's default):
- GitHub:
gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefNameorgh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name - GitLab:
glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null→ extracttarget_branchordefault_branch - Fallback:
git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD, thenorigin/main, thenorigin/master, thenmain
Print the detected base branch. Use it as <base> in all subsequent commands.
Step 1: Check branch
- Run
git branch --show-current. - If on the base branch: output "Nothing to review — you're on the base branch or have no changes against it." and stop.
- Run
git fetch origin <base> --quiet && git diff origin/<base> --stat. If no diff, output the same message and stop.
Step 1.5: Scope Drift Detection
Check whether the diff matches what was requested.
- Read
TODOS.md(if it exists). Read PR description (gh pr view --json body --jq .body 2>/dev/null || true). Read commit messages (git log origin/<base>..HEAD --oneline). - Identify the stated intent — what was this branch supposed to accomplish?
- Run
git diff origin/<base>...HEAD --statand compare against the stated intent.
Evaluate for:
- SCOPE CREEP — files changed that are unrelated to stated intent; "while I was in there" changes
- MISSING REQUIREMENTS — requirements from TODOS.md/PR description not in the diff; partial implementations
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 · 247 lines · 103 tokens per session scan A 378de1a627b4
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository HECer/yoke (2 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 103 tokens to every session and 2,395 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
refine-tests
Reviews existing test code for conformance to the test-designing-guide and test-writing-guide, then applies the refinements. Use this skill when the user wants to review or refine existing test code so it follows the project's test design and writing conventions. Typically invoked as /refine-tests .
work-review
Perform exhaustive code reviews using multi-agent analysis. Reviews PRs, branches, or current changes. Writes review.findings.json to the active session. Triggers on "review", "code review", "check PR".
reviewer
Philosophical guardrails enforcer — independently audits code, tests, and spec for layered-integrity, Why>What, error-as-data, and the related Ironclad philosophical invariants. Activate only when the connected project contains spec.yaml or the user explicitly names Cladding; ignore ordinary requests in uninitialized…
red-blue-review
An optional adversarial review process for requirement analyses. One agent produces the analysis, while an independent reviewer checks its report, database definitions, alignment records, and requirements for missed issues.
audit
Use when the user asks to audit this repo, run the engineering audit, run a practice audit, or check the codebase against the engineering-audit rules pack. Drives the engineering-audit MCP server's tools through a full audit run and produces a self-contained HTML report.
review-health
Audit any repository's structural health and prompt surface, and file the findings as proposed epics and one-PR issues.