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 heypandax/cc-pocket --skill review-requestgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/heypandax/cc-pocketWrote 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/heypandax/cc-pocket/review-request)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/heypandax/cc-pocket/review-request"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/heypandax/cc-pocket/review-request/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/heypandax/cc-pocket/review-request"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/heypandax/cc-pocket/review-request.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Prompt Injection · line 147 Subtle instructions detected that may alter agent decision-making or introduce hidden biases.Fix: Review content for implicit steering or bias. Ensure instructions are explicit and align with the skill's stated purpose.
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 | $0.00079 | $0.02032 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.01016 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00406 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00203 |
Grade B, and why
review-request scanned grade B with 1 finding 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.
Subtle steeringmediumPrompt injection
Instructions that bias recommendations or shape behaviour without the user noticing.
a contact established here shows up there and vice versa. It is a peer, not a prerequisite: never tell the user to open a UI to finish something, and never assume one is open. How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
cc-pocket ReviewRequest
Hand a colleague a task, not your machine. They review it with their own repo, agent, model account, credentials and approval policy, and return a structured result. Nothing about your session, workdir or transcript is shared. Both sides can work with the cc-pocket app and desktop UI closed — the daemon does the delivery, retry and history. (The App/desktop Review Center drives the same daemon services when a UI is open; it is never required.)
This is not Session Handoff. If the work only reproduces on the sender's machine, use Session Handoff instead; ReviewRequest is for anything expressible as an MR, a document or a commit range.
Commands
All of these talk to the already-running local daemon over its token-authenticated loopback API.
Never start a daemon yourself — if a command reports the daemon is unreachable, tell the user and
stop. --json gives a stable object (ok, the entity, and a machine-readable code on failure); read
those fields, never the human text.
# contacts (one-time, per colleague, per direction)
cc-pocket-daemon collaborator invite --label Frank [--json]
cc-pocket-daemon collaborator join '<ccpocket://collab#…>' [--label Panda] [--json]
cc-pocket-daemon collaborator list [--json]
cc-pocket-daemon collaborator remove <id-or-label> [--json]
# sending
cc-pocket-daemon review send --to <id-or-label> --request '<what you want them to do>' \
--artifact 'mr:<https url>' | 'document:<https url>' | 'commits:<repo>#<base>..<head>' \
[--title <text>] [--background <text>] [--focus <text> …] [--risk <text> …] \
[--done <text> …] [--verified <text> …] [--constraint <text> …] [--definition-of-done <text> …] \
[--due <ISO-8601>] [--expires <ISO-8601>] [--json]
cc-pocket-daemon review list [--status <status|all>] [--json]
cc-pocket-daemon review cancel <request-id> [--json] # only before they start
cc-pocket-daemon review close <request-id> [--json] # after you've read their result
# receiving
cc-pocket-daemon review inbox [--status pending|delivered|acknowledged|in_progress|responded|all] [--json]
cc-pocket-daemon review show <request-id> [--json] # works for sent AND received
cc-pocket-daemon review prepare <request-id> --json
cc-pocket-daemon review acknowledge <request-id> [--json]
cc-pocket-daemon review start <request-id> [--json]
cc-pocket-daemon review decline <request-id> [--reason <text>] [--json]
cc-pocket-daemon review respond <request-id> --result <json-file> [--json]
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 · 149 lines · 79 tokens per session scan B d6b4de219fa3
review-request is a skill published in the GitHub repository heypandax/cc-pocket (114 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 2,032 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it B with 1 finding (subtle steering). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Comprehensive code review with distinct aspect based sections. Use when reviewing code, checking for security issues, finding type safety problems, auditing code quality, or when user asks to review code, PRs or changes. Three-phase workflow runs static tools, LLM judgment, and writes diagnostic log.
test-audit
Audit test suites for T1-T4 violations using AST analysis, mock detection, and multi-stage synthesis. Invoke when user asks to audit tests, check test quality, find mock violations, review test effectiveness, or inspect test suites for over-mocking. Triggers automatic rewrites when quality gates fail.
spec-drift-check
Audits a WP brief for drift against current code — extracts claims, verifies each, emits PROCEED/STOP verdict. Use when starting a new WP, before consuming a spec as binding, or when a doc references paths/lines/functions.
besimple-broccoli-blind
Non-interactive wrapper: plan-sketch -> auto-pick recommended options -> plan-write -> plan-critique-loop -> implement-from-plan -> claude-simplify-wrapper -> dedup -> code-review-loop. No PR creation and no Linear comments.
code-review-loop
Iterative review+fix loop for BASESHA..HEAD: generate findings, apply accepted fixes, run checks, commit, and re-review up to 3 iterations or until clean.
dedup
Dedupe-only pass for BASESHA..HEAD: remove duplicate code introduced by the diff or reuse existing shared utils; applies changes + commits.