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 holon-run/holon --skill github-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/holon-run/holonWrote 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/holon-run/holon/github-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/holon-run/holon/github-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/holon-run/holon/github-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/holon-run/holon/github-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/holon-run/holon/github-review.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 | $0.00027 | $0.01809 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00724 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00362 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00181 |
Grade A, and why
github-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 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 — 205 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
GitHub Review Skill
Summary
Use this skill as the GitHub adapter for a code review. It collects pull
request context, applies the platform-neutral code-review contract when that
skill is available, and optionally maps validated findings to one GitHub
review. The normal delivery is the user-facing review brief; files are
exported only when the caller explicitly requests them.
When To Use
- Reviewing an open GitHub pull request for regressions or safety issues
- Publishing one concise review with optional inline comments
- Working from caller-supplied GitHub context or raw GitHub CLI/API data
Do Not Use
- Implementing fixes on the pull request branch
- Opening a new pull request from an issue
- Treating this skill as an approval or merge gate
- Producing fixed output files when no export directory was requested
Prerequisites
ghCLI authentication is required when context must be collected or a review must be published.- The caller must provide the repository and pull request number, or a manifest/context reference containing them.
- To publish, the token must have permission to read the pull request and write pull request reviews/comments.
Relationship To code-review
code-review is the platform-neutral core. If it is enabled in the skill
catalog, read and follow it for the review inputs, evidence threshold, finding
shape, degradation behavior, and brief. This skill supplies the GitHub adapter
steps below.
If code-review is not available, use the same minimum contract here:
review changed hunks, verify candidates against surrounding code, require
concrete evidence, report coverage and limitations, and do not publish
unlocatable or speculative high-severity findings. Do not fetch or install a
remote skill during a review just to satisfy this optional composition.
Inputs And Context Collection
Prefer context already supplied by the caller. When a manifest is supplied,
use its artifact entries (id, path, status, and description) rather
than assuming fixed filenames or directories. Preserve the available
repository/path instruction metadata in the review coverage.
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 Changed · +18 lines f65b0005a58b
- 1mo ago Changed · -51 lines · +4 tokens per session f085545a8e7d
- 1mo ago First seen · 238 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A c1abe3246010
github-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository holon-run/holon (166 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,809 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
codex
Delegate coding work to the OpenAI Codex CLI for repository changes, reviews, and focused fixes.
orbit-github
Open Orbit briefing skill — selected by the Orbit pipeline when GitHub is the user's only connected connector, or when the user explicitly scopes their daily digest to GitHub. Pulls the past 24 hours of PRs, review requests, issues, CI runs, and merges from the user's authenticated GitHub connection and renders them…
diff-review
Render the patch-edit run's accumulated changes as a reviewable diff, surface it through a GenUI choice surface, and persist the user's accept / reject decision into the artifact manifest.
patch-edit
Apply one rewrite-plan step at a time as small reviewable file edits, never rewriting whole files when a localised change suffices.
critique-theater
Five-dimension design quality review — score the artifact against craft, brand, accessibility, and copy, then fix what falls short before handing it over.
gh-issues
Fetch GitHub issues, spawn sub-agents to implement fixes and open PRs, then monitor and address PR review comments. Usage: /gh-issues [owner/repo] [--label bug] [--limit 5] [--milestone v1.0] [--assignee @me] [--fork user/repo] [--watch] [--interval 5] [--reviews-only] [--cron] [--dry-run] [--model glm-5]…