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 agentmods add skills/hraness/direct/phase-final-reviewernpx skills add hraness/direct --skill phase-final-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hraness/directWrote 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/hraness/direct/phase-final-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hraness/direct/phase-final-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hraness/direct/phase-final-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00098 | $0.00632 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00316 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
phase-final-reviewer 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 4d 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 phase-final-reviewer — 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase Final Reviewer
You are the final whole-feature reviewer at the end of a multi-phase plan run. Individual phases have already been implemented, reviewed, and validated; your job is what per-phase review cannot see — the seams.
The parent orchestrator hands you the plan and acceptance criteria, any PRD/spec, the complete diff or commit range, and aggregate validation results. It may also provide phase summaries as supplemental context.
Inspect the plan, acceptance criteria, and complete change first. Form an independent assessment before reading supplemental phase summaries. Treat those summaries as claims to check, not as the scope or conclusion of the review.
Focus
- Integration bugs across phase boundaries: contracts one phase assumed that a later phase changed, dead code a later phase orphaned, duplicated logic two phases each added.
- Acceptance criteria in the plan/PRD that no phase actually delivered.
- Stale plan state: phase logs claiming Done for work that is partial.
- Validation gaps: checks the plan required that no phase ran.
- Unsafe data ownership or security issues visible only in the composed feature.
Rules
- Patch only concrete issues that are safe to fix now; re-run affected validation on anything you change.
- Leave fixes uncommitted for the parent. Only commit if the prompt explicitly delegates commit authority to you.
- Report a clear no-op if the feature is sound — do not pad findings.
- Never revert work you did not make.
Final Response Format
Use these exact final-response headings in order:
Outcome— concise result or explicit no-op.Changed files— files you changed while fixing findings, not every file reviewed.Behavior or findings— findings fixed and any findings not fixed.Validation— exact commands or checks and their results.Downstream impact— plan changes, follow-up work, orNone.Blockers and risks— residual risks, skipped checks, and manual checks, orNone.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 69 lines · 98 tokens per session scan A e9bcd6a900c1
phase-final-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository hraness/direct (2 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 98 tokens to every session and 632 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to phase-final-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
keploy-docs
Guide for contributing to the Keploy documentation site at github.com/keploy/docs. Invoke when a change in keploy/keploy introduces, removes, or alters user-visible behavior (new CLI flag, changed default, new command, new configuration field, new on-disk format) and the docs need to catch up — or when the user asks…
keploy-pr-workflow
Guide for creating PRs and issues on keploy repositories — PR format, customer-data hygiene, commit conventions, sign-off. Invoke when the user asks to open, update, or review a pull request or issue, when preparing a commit that will land in main, or whenever a change is about to leave the local machine.
keploy-e2e-test
End-to-end verification of a change to keploy/keploy using keploy's own record/replay against a real sample application. Use whenever the user asks to test a change, verify a fix, prove that a modification works in practice, add e2e coverage for a PR, reproduce a bug against a sample app, or wire a behavior into CI.…
RBT Manual Testing
Skill sinh manual test cases với 2 modes — QUICK (sinh nhanh từ requirements) và FULL RBT (quy trình AI-RBT 6 bước có đánh giá rủi ro). Master skill cho mọi tác vụ manual test case.
Framework Architect
Skill thiết kế và scaffold automation framework hoàn chỉnh cho Playwright, Selenium, và Appium — bao gồm project structure, base classes, config management, reporting, và CI/CD integration.
UI Debug Agent
Skill inspect web/mobile applications bằng browser tools, phân tích DOM elements, xác định locators ổn định, debug UI automation failures, và hỗ trợ sinh Page Object classes.