Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to HoziMurayama/Multi-LLM-Debugging-Bridge. 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/HoziMurayama/Multi-LLM-Debugging-Bridge/master/.claude/skills/tool-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HoziMurayama/Multi-LLM-Debugging-BridgeWrote 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/hozimurayama/multi-llm-debugging-bridge/tool-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hozimurayama/multi-llm-debugging-bridge/tool-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hozimurayama/multi-llm-debugging-bridge/tool-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/hozimurayama/multi-llm-debugging-bridge/tool-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hozimurayama/multi-llm-debugging-bridge/tool-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 | $0.00026 | $0.00395 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00198 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
tool-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 9d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to tool-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Tool Review
Review the MCP tool implementation for: $ARGUMENTS
Process
1. Locate the tool
Find the tool implementation in src/tools/ and its registration in src/server.ts.
2. Check against project patterns
Verify each of these (from CLAUDE.md):
Response format:
- Returns
{ content: [{ type: 'text', text: '...' }] }on success - Returns
{ content: [{ type: 'text', text: 'Error: ...' }], isError: true }on error
Input validation:
- Required arguments are checked with clear error messages
- Uses appropriate types from Zod schemas where applicable
Registration in server.ts:
- Tool is imported with
.jsextension in the import path - Added to
getTools()array with correct JSON Schema for inputs - Has a case in the
CallToolRequestSchemahandler switch
Dependencies:
- Uses the right dependencies (providerManager, conversationManager, healthMonitor, etc.)
- Follows the same injection pattern as existing tools
3. Check for common issues
- Missing error handling for provider calls
- Hardcoded values that should come from config
- Missing or incorrect TypeScript types
- Security issues (unsanitized input, injection risks)
4. Report
For each check:
- ✓ Pass — follows the pattern correctly
- ✗ Fail — what's wrong and how to fix it
- ⚠ Warning — works but could be improved
End with a summary: APPROVED or NEEDS CHANGES with specific action items.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 54 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 50d947685f39
tool-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository HoziMurayama/Multi-LLM-Debugging-Bridge (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 395 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to tool-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…