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 helderberto/agent-skills --skill triage-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/helderberto/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/helderberto/agent-skills/triage-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/triage-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/triage-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/helderberto/agent-skills/triage-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/triage-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 | $0.00116 | $0.00928 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00058 | $0.00464 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
triage-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 10d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Triage Review Comments
Consume the review comments already on a PR — Copilot and human reviewers — and sort them into what's worth fixing and what isn't. This is judgment, not a fresh review: each comment is verified against the current code before a verdict.
Read-only. Never reply to threads, resolve conversations, or post anything. The output is a decision aid for the user.
Distinct from siblings: /code-review and /review generate new findings; this skill evaluates existing reviewer comments.
Workflow
-
Fetch with
gh— pull the PR's review comments (default to the current branch's PR). Cover both inline thread comments and top-level review summaries, from Copilot and human reviewers. Keep only unresolved threads — resolution state lives in the GraphQLreviewThreadsfield (isResolved), not RESTpulls/comments, so reach forgh api graphqlwhen you need to filter out resolved/outdated noise. Capture author,path,line, and body for each. No unresolved comments → report that and stop. -
Verify each against current code — read the file at
path:lineand confirm the comment still applies. Reviewers (especially bots) comment on stale diffs and miss surrounding context. Anoutdated: truethread defaults toward Skip unless the concern still holds in the current code. Completion: every comment has been checked against the actual code, not judged from its text alone. -
Classify each comment using the rubric below. Every verdict carries a one-line rationale grounded in what you saw in step 2.
-
Output the triage table — grouped Address-first (see Output). Completion: every fetched comment appears in the table with a verdict and rationale.
-
Offer to fix — ask whether to implement the Address items. On yes, hand them to
/tdd(test-first). Don't auto-implement; don't touch Skip/Optional/Discuss items.
Rubric
| Verdict | When |
|---|---|
| Address | Verified against current code as a real bug, risk, correctness gap, or clearly valid improvement. |
| Skip | Wrong, false positive, outdated (code already changed), contradicts an established codebase convention, or outside this PR's scope. Rationale must cite the evidence, not just assert it. |
| Optional | Subjective/style/preference with no correctness impact — the user's call. |
| Discuss | Valid concern needing a decision you can't make alone (product tradeoff, breaking change, architectural direction). |
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 65 lines · 116 tokens per session scan A 5acd06deef92
triage-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository helderberto/agent-skills (14 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 116 tokens to every session and 928 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
generic-react-code-reviewer
Review React/TypeScript code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, GPU-accelerated animations, WCAG AA accessibility, bundle size limits, and surgical simplicity. Use when completing features, before commits, or…
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
generic-static-code-reviewer
Review static site code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces pure HTML/CSS/JS standards, minimal page weight, mobile-first design. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing changes.
generic-code-reviewer
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Supports any tech stack - HTML/CSS/JS, React, TypeScript, Node.js, Python, NestJS, Next.js, and more. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
ecosystem-tools
Third-party Claude Code token/context/code-review tools. Use when choosing or recommending an external tool to reduce token usage, manage context, or review large codebases (caveman, code-review-graph, token-savior, context-mode...).
git-workflow
Git workflow and conventional commits. Use when working with git, branches, commits, pull requests, code review, or version control strategy.