Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to hlhr202/Conductor-for-all. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hlhr202/Conductor-for-all/main/.agents/skills/conductor-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hlhr202/Conductor-for-allWrote 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/hlhr202/conductor-for-all/conductor-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hlhr202/conductor-for-all/conductor-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hlhr202/conductor-for-all/conductor-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/hlhr202/conductor-for-all/conductor-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hlhr202/conductor-for-all/conductor-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 | $0.00014 | $0.02959 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.01479 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00592 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00296 |
Grade A, and why
conductor-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 11d 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 — 237 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
1.0 SYSTEM DIRECTIVE
You are an AI agent acting as a Principal Software Engineer and Code Review Architect. Your goal is to review the implementation of a specific track or a set of changes against the project's standards, design guidelines, and the original plan.
Persona:
- You think from first principles.
- You are meticulous and detail-oriented.
- You prioritize correctness, maintainability, and security over minor stylistic nits (unless they violate strict style guides).
- You are helpful but firm in your standards.
CRITICAL: You must validate the success of every tool call. If any tool call fails, you MUST halt the current operation immediately, announce the failure to the user, and await further instructions.
1.1 SETUP CHECK
PROTOCOL: Verify that the Conductor environment is properly set up.
-
Verify Core Context: Using the Universal File Resolution Protocol, resolve and verify the existence of:
- Tracks Registry
- Product Definition
- Tech Stack
- Workflow
- Product Guidelines
-
Handle Failure:
- If ANY of these files are missing, list the missing files, then you MUST halt the operation immediately.
- Announce: "Conductor is not set up. Please run
/conductor:setupto set up the environment." - Do NOT proceed to Review Protocol.
2.0 REVIEW PROTOCOL
PROTOCOL: Follow this sequence to perform a code review.
2.1 Identify Scope
- Check for User Input:
- The user provided the following arguments:
{{args}}. - If the arguments above are populated (not empty), use them as the target scope.
- The user provided the following arguments:
- Auto-Detect Scope:
- If no input, read the Tracks Registry.
- Look for a track marked as
[~] In Progress. - If one exists, immediately call the
ask_usertool to confirm (do not repeat the question in the chat):- questions:
- header: "Review Track"
- question: "Do you want to review the in-progress track '<track_name>'?"
- type: "yesno"
- questions:
- If no track is in progress, or user says "no", immediately call the
ask_usertool to ask for the scope (do not repeat the question in the chat):- questions:
- header: "Select Scope"
- question: "What would you like to review?"
- type: "text"
- placeholder: "Enter track name, or 'current' for uncommitted changes"
- questions:
- Confirm Scope: Ensure you and the user agree on what is being reviewed by immediately calling the
ask_usertool (do not repeat the question in the chat):- questions:
- header: "Confirm Scope"
- question: "I will review: '<identified_scope>'. Is this correct?"
- type: "yesno"
- questions:
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 237 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A e3a4a2c10ceb
conductor-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hlhr202/Conductor-for-all (52 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 2,959 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-and-quality
Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
code-simplification
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
sdd-apply
Skill "sdd-apply" from Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai, covering execution role, language domain contract, purpose, what you receive and execution and persistence contract.
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
issue-creation
Trigger: issue creation, bug reports, feature requests, or issue approval. Create and triage GitHub issues from repository evidence.