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 HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard --skill common-review-policygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standardWrote 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/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-review-policy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-review-policy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-review-policy/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/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-review-policy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-review-policy.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 | $0.00050 | $0.00967 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00387 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00193 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
common-review-policy 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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Policy Standard
Priority: P1 (HIGH)
Every pull request gets the same passes in the same order. A review that varies by reviewer or by day is not a control.
1. The Policy File
- Location:
docs/review-policy.md, tracked in the repository and reviewed like code. code-reviewandreview-ticketload it when present; its severity and skip rules override their defaults.- Owned by the technical lead. Absent the file, the workflow defaults apply and the review says so.
- Load
references/review-policy-template.mdwhen drafting or auditing the file.
2. Required Passes
Declare the passes and their order. Each pass names what it checks and what it explicitly ignores.
| Pass | Checks | Out of scope |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness | logic, edge cases, requirement coverage | style |
| Security | injection, secrets, authorization, trust boundaries | theoretical risk with no path |
| Tests | new logic covered, failure paths asserted | coverage percentage targets |
| Compliance | audit, data classification, licence | product decisions |
3. Severity Ladder
- Blocker: merge causes a defect, breach, or data loss. Concrete path required.
- Major: real risk or requirement gap the author must resolve or explicitly accept.
- Nit: everything else, including style, naming, and preference. Minor and Suggestion collapse into Nit.
- Confidence: a finding without evidence is
needs validation, never a silent drop and never a Blocker. - One ladder per repository. Workflows that use a longer list map onto these three before publishing.
4. Noise Control
- Skip list: generated code, vendored dependencies, lockfiles, and snapshots. Name them as globs.
- Nit cap: a fixed maximum per review. Over the cap, keep the highest-signal nits and drop the rest.
- Lead with risk: Blocker and Major first, nits last, praise never.
- Deduplicate by root cause: one finding per cause, listing the affected locations.
5. Tuning and Feedback
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 100 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A d913233e85b3
common-review-policy is a skill published in the GitHub repository HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard (582 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 967 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 2026-09-25.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-quality
Comprehensive frontend code review for TypeScript 6 and React 19.2 — clean code principles, component patterns, type safety, accessibility, and performance. Use when user says "review code", "refactor", "check this PR", or before merging changes.
spotpatch
A development workflow for React that connects a selected page element to its JSX or TSX source code and gathers context for review.
ralph
Ralph - persistent self-referential execution loop wrapping ultrawork with independent verifier verification.
review
Full QA review pipeline covering security audit (OWASP Top 10), performance analysis, accessibility check (WCAG 2.1 AA), and code quality review.
design-lenses
Critique a game's design through Schell's lenses, MDA and systems thinking, ranking findings by severity with fixes. Design-level review, not bugs or feel tuning.
Component Test Scaffold (Next.js)
Generate React/Next.js component test skeletons (RTL) from specifications.