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 iamBrzDev/enterprise-agent-skills --skill enterprise-pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iamBrzDev/enterprise-agent-skillsWrote 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/iambrzdev/enterprise-agent-skills/enterprise-pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iambrzdev/enterprise-agent-skills/enterprise-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iambrzdev/enterprise-agent-skills/enterprise-pr-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/iambrzdev/enterprise-agent-skills/enterprise-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iambrzdev/enterprise-agent-skills/enterprise-pr-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 | $0.00083 | $0.00719 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.00360 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
enterprise-pr-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 2d 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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When to activate
- "Review this code / PR / diff"
- "What do you think about this implementation?"
- "Check this for issues before I merge"
- "Does this follow best practices?"
- Any code pasted with the expectation of feedback
Review Framework
Analyze across 6 dimensions. Use severity: 🔴 Blocker · 🟡 Warning · 🔵 Suggestion
1. Correctness & Logic
- Does the code do what it's supposed to?
- Edge cases: null inputs, empty collections, concurrent access
- Error paths handled?
2. Security
- User input in raw SQL, shell commands, or file paths?
- Protected endpoints actually protected?
- Secrets, keys, or PII logged or exposed in responses?
🔴 Raw SQL with string interpolation
🔴 API endpoint without auth check
🔴 Password or token in response body
🟡 User-controlled data in file path without sanitization
🟡 Auth check without ownership check
3. Performance
- N+1 query patterns?
- Missing pagination on large result sets?
- Blocking I/O where async applies?
4. Design & SOLID
- Single Responsibility: does this class/method do one thing?
- Dependency Inversion: dependencies injected or hardcoded?
- Names accurately reflect behavior?
5. Testability
- Can this be unit tested without a DB or HTTP server?
- Dependencies injectable?
6. Team Consistency
- Follows established patterns in this codebase?
- Same naming conventions and error handling?
Output Format
## PR Review
### Summary
Brief description and overall assessment.
### Blockers 🔴
1. [File:Line] Problem description and why it matters.
**Fix:** Concrete suggestion.
### Warnings 🟡
### Suggestions 🔵
### What's done well ✅
At least one specific thing done right.
Non-negotiables — always 🔴
- User input in raw SQL without parameterization
- Missing auth/authz on protected resources
- Secrets or PII in logs or API responses
- Swallowed exceptions with empty catch blocks
- Hardcoded credentials in code
Tone
Direct but constructive. Reference file:line specifically. Explain why, not just what. Assume good intent.
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.
- 2d ago Changed · +10 lines e6ec3f009657
- 11d ago First seen · 93 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 1efd5c8cffaa
enterprise-pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository iamBrzDev/enterprise-agent-skills (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 719 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
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.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
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…