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 i9wa4/dotfiles --skill create-review-commentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/i9wa4/dotfilesWrote 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/i9wa4/dotfiles/create-review-comment)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/i9wa4/dotfiles/create-review-comment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/i9wa4/dotfiles/create-review-comment/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/i9wa4/dotfiles/create-review-comment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/i9wa4/dotfiles/create-review-comment.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 | $0.00064 | $0.00384 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00154 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00077 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
create-review-comment 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.
What it actually says
Create Review Comment
User-facing trigger for drafting Japanese GitHub PR review comments.
$create-review-comment, $create-review-comment #123, and
ai-create-review-comment for this branch all start target inference and
drafting.
Owns target inference, Japanese draft output, and the no-post-without-approval
gate. Review procedure belongs to subagent-review; GitHub mechanics and path
hygiene belong to dev-platform-workflow. In tmux-a2a-postman,
orchestrator/worker only infer targets and collect PR context before routing
substantive review to guardian.
1. Workflow
- Infer the target PR from the prompt, current branch, or GitHub context. If missing or ambiguous, ask only for the minimum target identifier.
- Read Workflow before changing behavior or giving detailed instructions.
- For substantive drafting, use
subagent-reviewthrough postman: send the review package to guardian, let guardian request critic, and never launch reviewer subagents from orchestrator/worker. Do not ask the user for review mechanics. - Run the checks named in the workflow guide or the nearest repo harness.
- Output draft comments visibly for user approval. Do not post them unless the user explicitly asks.
2. References
What ships with it
4 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.
- 1mo ago Changed c987b98420dc
- 2mo ago First seen · 40 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 97eaff9bffb3
create-review-comment is a skill published in the GitHub repository i9wa4/dotfiles (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 384 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
drift-check
Pre-PR advisory check for deviations from the project spec. Read-only analysis.
codebase-audit
Analyze a git repo's history to surface high-churn files, ownership risks, bug hotspots, momentum trends, and firefighting patterns. Use this skill whenever the user wants to understand a codebase, assess repo health, or orient themselves before reading code — even if they don't explicitly say "audit". Examples…
pr-style
This skill should be used when creating or editing a GitHub pull request title or description, regardless of tool (gh CLI, GitHub MCP tools, API). Defines PR title format and body format with Why/What/Notes sections.
gh-pr
This skill should be used when creating a GitHub pull request via gh pr create. Covers the gh CLI mechanics; PR title and body conventions come from the pr-style skill.
pi-review
A process for getting an independent review of a code or design change from a separate pi review session. The review uses either the sol or luna model and checks the repository or supplied document.
audit
Repo audits, one mode or all (codebase, docs, process, perf, tests, threat-model, motion, SEO, debt). Triggers "audit the codebase", "full audit", "perf audit", "audit the tests", "threat model", "motion audit", "seo audit", "debt ledger".