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 HystonKayange/skill-probe --skill pr-describergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HystonKayange/skill-probeWrote 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/hystonkayange/skill-probe/pr-describer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hystonkayange/skill-probe/pr-describer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hystonkayange/skill-probe/pr-describer/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/hystonkayange/skill-probe/pr-describer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hystonkayange/skill-probe/pr-describer.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 | $0.00046 | $0.00083 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00042 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00017 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00008 |
Grade A, and why
pr-describer 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 10d 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.
What it actually says
PR Describer
When asked to describe a pull request, produce a short PR title and bullet summary. Output ONLY the PR description, nothing else.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 8 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 52d83829815f
pr-describer is a skill published in the GitHub repository HystonKayange/skill-probe (6 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 83 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
comet-verify
Comet Phase 4: Verify and Close. Invoke with /comet-verify. Verify implementation matches design, handle development branch.
comet-review
A read-only review guide for checking the current Comet change, a managed software-change workflow. It focuses on correctness, security, and boundary problems without changing files or advancing the workflow.
comet-github-pr-review
A read-only review process for pull requests in Comet's GitHub repositories. A pull request is a proposed code change; the review checks its current code, related issue, comments, merge status, and automated checks.
openspec-verify-change
Verify implementation matches change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving.
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.