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 hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace --skill review-checklistgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplaceWrote 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/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/review-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/review-checklist/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/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace/review-checklist.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 | $0.00043 | $0.00596 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00238 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00119 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00060 |
Grade A, and why
review-checklist 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 — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Checklist
Purpose
Structured pass/fail checklist for a reviewer (human or agent). Produces a consistent, auditable review record on every PR.
Checklist
Correctness
- Implementation covers every acceptance criterion in the linked story
- No obvious logical errors or off-by-one conditions
- Edge cases identified in the story are handled
- No dead code paths that are untested
Test quality
- All new code covered by at least one test
- Unit coverage on new code meets the project's threshold
- Tests assert behaviour, not implementation detail
- No test that always passes regardless of the code under test
- No real user data or production identifiers in test data
-
@wip/.skip/.onlytags removed before merge
Security
- No secrets, API keys, or passwords in code or comments
- Input validation on all externally supplied values
- Authentication and authorisation enforced where the story requires them
- No raw stack traces leaked in HTTP error responses
- No user-controlled input concatenated into SQL, shell, or template strings
- Dependencies scanned — no new Critical or High vulnerabilities introduced
Code quality
- Methods are small and single-purpose (no god methods)
- Names reflect domain language from the story
- No commented-out code
- No
TODOwithout a linked ticket - No inline linting suppression without an explanatory comment
- No hardcoded environment-specific values (URLs, ports, credentials)
Dependencies
- No new dependency introduced without a comment explaining why
- No dependency that duplicates an existing one in the project
- Licence compatible with the project's policy
Documentation
- Public API methods have doc comments
- README updated if setup or usage steps changed
- ADR written for any significant architectural decision made (see the
adr-templateplugin)
Accessibility (for UI changes)
If the PR touches UI, run the accessibility-check skill in addition to this checklist. The axe-core assertion and manual check table live there to avoid duplication.
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 · 62 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 81242f9dcde9
review-checklist is a skill published in the GitHub repository hmcts/agentic-plugins-marketplace (4 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 596 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…