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 HuntsDesk/ve-kit --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HuntsDesk/ve-kitWrote 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/huntsdesk/ve-kit/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/huntsdesk/ve-kit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/huntsdesk/ve-kit/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/huntsdesk/ve-kit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/huntsdesk/ve-kit/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 | $0.00048 | $0.02688 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.01075 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00538 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00269 |
Grade A, and why
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 11d 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 — 182 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
REVIEW Mode Protocol
You are entering REVIEW mode. Determine which type of review is needed and follow the appropriate protocol.
Detect Review Context
Check board_get_tasks for the active project:
- If tasks exist with
status: 'todo'andriper_mode: 'plan'→ Post-PLAN Review - If tasks exist with
status: 'done'andriper_mode: 'execute'→ Post-EXECUTE Review - If git diff shows uncommitted changes → Post-EXECUTE Review
- If unclear, ask the user: "Is this a plan review or an implementation review?"
Post-PLAN Review
Validate the plan is complete and correct before execution begins.
Checklist
- Query board tasks:
board_get_tasks(project_id, status='todo') - For each task, verify:
- Has an
assigned_agentset (FAIL if missing) - The assigned agent matches the task type (see
/planskill mapping) - Dependencies are correct — no circular deps, no missing prerequisites
- Priority makes sense — blocking tasks are
criticalorhigh - Description has enough context for the agent to execute standalone
- Description includes acceptance criteria (FAIL if missing — "build X" without "with Y behavior, Z config" is insufficient)
- Acceptance criteria include any user-specified requirements (schedule, trigger method, notification rules, etc.)
- Has an
- Check for gaps:
- Are there missing tasks? (e.g., plan mentions 5 steps but only 4 tasks exist)
- Does the plan schedule the post-EXECUTE review where the MODE 5 trigger applies (
code-reviewer,test-runner)?
- Fix issues:
- Missing agent →
board_update_taskto setassigned_agent - Wrong agent →
board_update_taskto correct it - Missing task →
board_create_taskto add it - Wrong dependency →
board_update_taskto fixdepends_on
- Missing agent →
Verdict
- PASS: All tasks have correct assignments, dependencies are valid, no gaps. Ready for EXECUTE.
- NEEDS REVISION: List specific issues. Do NOT proceed to EXECUTE until resolved.
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.
- 11d ago Changed · -7 lines cd448360f0a6
- 27d ago Changed a9f886bf9cd1
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 9a92708774ce
- 1mo ago Changed · +10 lines 3f4709a21cb2
- 1mo ago First seen · 178 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 8e3a7dc3929d
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository HuntsDesk/ve-kit (3 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 2,688 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-review
Review open PRs two ways - default is a per-PR deep review with severity-tagged findings, inline comments, and a verdict; --survey runs a risk-tiered triage digest of what's safe to merge first.
pr-triage
First-touch triage for external pull requests - verdict, label, and a welcoming comment within minutes of open.
feedback-builder
Point Aeon at a service's /feedback endpoint - pull what agents reported (bugs, missing features), triage and cluster it, then build the best accepted request as a PR for a human to approve.
[REPLACE: SKILL_NAME]
First-touch review of newly opened PRs on [REPLACE: WATCHEDREPO] — verdict + welcoming comment + label.
code-review
Systematic code review for bugs, security, style, and performance.
code-review
Review code for security, quality, and maintainability with structured feedback.