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 hoatv2211/GameStudio-CodexKIT --skill review-swarmgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hoatv2211/GameStudio-CodexKITWrote 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/hoatv2211/gamestudio-codexkit/review-swarm)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hoatv2211/gamestudio-codexkit/review-swarm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoatv2211/gamestudio-codexkit/review-swarm/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/hoatv2211/gamestudio-codexkit/review-swarm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoatv2211/gamestudio-codexkit/review-swarm.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 | $0.00036 | $0.00899 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00449 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00180 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
review-swarm 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 3d 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Swarm
Overview
Parallelize independent review questions, never write ownership. Reviewers remain read-only and the integrator owns deduplication and the final verdict.
When to use
Use for a known diff, pull request, generated output, architecture change, safety review, or release candidate that benefits from independent lenses.
When NOT to use
Do not use when the failure is unknown and needs hypothesis discovery; route that work to bug-hunt-swarm. Do not use when lanes would need to edit the same files.
Required inputs and context discovery
Require the exact change set, repository snapshot, review questions, lane boundaries, affected paths, applicable contracts, severity model, and integrator owner.
Safety and risk level
All lanes are read-only. Reviewers may inspect files and run non-mutating checks but may not edit, commit, start services, import data, or alter generated state.
Workflow
- Freeze the review target and define non-overlapping lane questions. Completion criterion: every concern has one lane and no lane owns writes.
- Give each lane the minimum repository context and exact evidence format. Add one optional independent dependency/impact lane when a fresh provider is available; the lane stays read-only, owns graph blast-radius findings, owns source disagreements and missing coverage, and cannot issue runtime PASS. Completion criterion: lane reports cite affected paths and concrete evidence.
- Run lanes independently without sharing conclusions mid-review. Completion criterion: findings are not contaminated by another lane’s verdict.
- Integrate, deduplicate, calibrate severity, and record counterevidence. Completion criterion: each retained finding is actionable and source-backed.
- Issue PASS, NEEDS WORK, or BLOCKED and assign fixes to a separate write owner. Completion criterion: reviewers still have no write scope.
Evidence and output contract
Produce lane reports, affected locations, evidence, counterevidence, severity, recommended next step, and one integrator verdict.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 3d ago Changed · +2 lines 87fdc73f8188
- 9d ago First seen · 83 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 27cfba3a3bd3
review-swarm is a skill published in the GitHub repository hoatv2211/GameStudio-CodexKIT (3 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 899 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
codex-sdd:validate
Check implementation alignment with specification, detect drift between planned design and actual code. Fourth phase of OpenSpec workflow.
vibe-spec-sync
Bidirectional sync between specification documents and code. Detects spec drift from staged changes, updates spec to reflect approved decisions, and ensures every commit represents a reconciled snapshot of spec, tests, and code.
vibe-gap-analysis
Assesses production readiness or audits a codebase against its specs. Supports quick static mode, deep 17-dimension audit, or single-dimension focus.
vibe-devil-advocate-review
Challenges recommendations, designs, or synthesis by adversarial review across 5 dimensions. Use before shipping any significant recommendation or design document.
vibe-iteration-review
Performs end-of-iteration review with quality grading, metrics, and trend analysis. Use at the end of each development iteration or sprint.
vibe-spec-vs-code-audit
Compares specification documents against implementation code to find divergences. Use when implementation of a spec or design doc is claimed complete.