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 Heyvhuang/ship-faster --skill review-doc-consistencygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Heyvhuang/ship-fasterWrote 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/heyvhuang/ship-faster/review-doc-consistency)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/heyvhuang/ship-faster/review-doc-consistency"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/heyvhuang/ship-faster/review-doc-consistency/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/heyvhuang/ship-faster/review-doc-consistency"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/heyvhuang/ship-faster/review-doc-consistency.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 | $0.00092 | $0.00782 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00391 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
review-doc-consistency 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 12d 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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Documentation Consistency Reviewer
Goal
Systematically identify all "outdated" or "inconsistent with implementation" descriptions in README + docs/, outputting ≥30 issue items.
Core Principles
- Code is truth - When documentation conflicts with code, source code/config/contract files are authoritative
- Evidence before conclusions - Each issue must cite code/config location as evidence
- Contracts first - OpenAPI/proto/schema/TS types are treated as SSOT (Single Source of Truth)
- Security default tightening - Security-related inconsistencies are prioritized as high severity
Review Process
1. Document Enumeration
# Scan scope
- README.md (root directory)
- docs/**/*.md (all documentation)
- Contract files: OpenAPI/proto/GraphQL schema/TS types
2. Document-by-Document Review
For each document:
- List key claims/commitments/configs/interface items
- Search for corresponding implementation in code
- Compare differences: missing/renamed/behavior mismatch/default value mismatch
- Record issues using template
3. Cross-Check
- Reverse check documentation from contract files
- Reverse check documentation from config files
See checklist.md for detailed review checklist.
Severity Levels
| Level | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| P0 | Security issue/serious misleading | Docs say sandbox enabled but code doesn't enable it |
| P1 | Core functionality inconsistency | Following docs leads to failure |
| P2 | Incomplete examples/naming inconsistency | Doesn't directly block usage |
| P3 | Wording/formatting/link minor issues | Doesn't affect functionality |
| Pending Evidence | Suspicious but insufficient evidence | Needs further investigation |
Output Format
See output-format.md for detailed templates.
Single Issue Item
### [Title]
- **Severity**: P0/P1/P2/P3/Pending Evidence
- **Location**: `<file_path>:<line_number>`
- **Evidence**:
- Documentation: [quote]
- Code: [quote]
- **Impact**: [Misleading consequences]
- **Suggestion**: [Minimal fix]
- **Related Principle**: Code is truth/Contracts first/Security default tightening/...
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 95 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A a6f0ba1c1228
review-doc-consistency is a skill published in the GitHub repository Heyvhuang/ship-faster (339 stars, last pushed 27d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 782 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…