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 iliaal/ai-skills --skill document-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iliaal/ai-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/iliaal/ai-skills/document-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iliaal/ai-skills/document-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iliaal/ai-skills/document-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/iliaal/ai-skills/document-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iliaal/ai-skills/document-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 71 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- low Excessive Agency · line 150 Skill's behavior or capabilities extend beyond its stated purpose. Scope creep allows an agent to perform actions unrelated to its documented functionality, increasing the attack surface.Fix: Limit the skill's scope to its documented purpose. Remove instructions that enable the agent to perform actions outside its stated functionality.
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 | $0.00058 | $0.02021 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00808 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00404 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00202 |
Grade A, and why
document-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 24d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- ia-document-review — 100% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 159 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Document Review
Improve brainstorm or plan documents through structured review.
Working rules
- Assess before editing, preserve implementation-relevant constraints and rationale, and distinguish minor edits from substantive decisions.
- A review-only request authorizes findings, not file edits. Apply changes only when the user has requested editing or approved the proposed changes; do not ask again for changes already authorized.
Step 1: Get the Document
If a document path is provided: Read it, then proceed to Step 2.
If no document is specified: Ask which document to review (via AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex, or numbered options in chat as the fallback), or look for the most recent brainstorm/plan in docs/brainstorms/ or docs/plans/.
Step 2: Assess
Read through the document and ask:
- What is unclear?
- What is unnecessary?
- What decision is being avoided?
- What assumptions are unstated?
- Where could scope accidentally expand?
- Is this technically feasible with the current architecture?
- Is what it says about the current system true? Follow each checkable claim (file paths, function, command, or config names, endpoints, cited PRs or issues, numbers, behavior implied by verbs like "retries") to its source, reading only. On a long document, sample and state the coverage.
- Are there security implications in what's proposed?
These questions surface issues. Note findings without fixing yet.
Step 3: Activate Review Lenses
Based on the document's content, activate specialized review perspectives. Scan for signals and apply matching lenses:
| Lens | Signals | What it checks |
|---|---|---|
| Product | User-facing features, customer language, market claims, scope decisions | Problem framing, value proposition clarity, whether scope matches stated goals |
| Design | UI/UX references, user flows, wireframes, interaction descriptions | Flow completeness, interaction gaps, accessibility considerations |
| Security | Auth/authorization, API endpoints, PII, payments, tokens, encryption | Auth model gaps, data exposure risks, missing threat considerations |
| Scope guardian | Multiple priority tiers (P0/P1/P2), large requirement count (>8), stretch goals | Scope creep, premature abstractions, features disguised as requirements |
| Adversarial | >5 distinct requirements, explicit architectural decisions, high-stakes domains | Unstated assumptions, optimistic estimates, single points of failure, missing failure modes |
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.
- 24d ago Changed f46cf7008179
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines · +8 tokens per session 350a926bdb67
- 1mo ago Changed 65bbccb6c6ea
- 1mo ago Changed · -3 lines ece9d831ff39
- 1mo ago First seen · 160 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 0bed397ebf4a
document-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository iliaal/ai-skills (45 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 2,021 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
ralph
Launcher for the Ralph-style queue drain script - emits the right node ralph-loop.mjs invocation based on the user's filter and bounds. The actual loop runs as a Node script that opens one server run and spawns one claude -p --worktree per iteration under its own seat; this skill is the configurator, not the loop. Use…
session-retrospective
Analyzes the current implementation run - evaluates schema effectiveness, delegation alignment, note quality, and plan-to-execution fit. Captures cross-session trends and proposes improvements when patterns repeat. Use after implementation runs, or when user says 'retrospective', 'session review', 'what did we learn'…
adopt-project-scope
Migrates an already-populated, unscoped Task Orchestrator database in place to the project-scoping convention — creates a project anchor root, re-parents existing work trees under it, and writes rootId back to config.yaml. Use when a user says: adopt project scope, migrate this database to project scoping, make this…
configure-server
Configures how the MCP Task Orchestrator SERVER runs and is reached — transport (HTTP vs STDIO), the REST API, port publishing, config mounts, and config-sync. Use when a user says: run the server, register the image, set up the Docker container, enable the REST API, set up config-sync, reconfigure the server, change…
manage-schemas
Creates, views, edits, deletes, and validates note schemas for the MCP Task Orchestrator in .taskorchestrator/config.yaml — the templates that define which notes agents must fill at each workflow phase. Also recommends schema designs from a library of workflow patterns (autonomous coding loops, spec-driven teams…
review-proposals
Triages pending improvement-proposal MCP items - presents each with its scope and evidence, collects an accept/reject/defer decision per proposal, and carries out the disposition: project-scoped acceptances get their exact YAML applied to .taskorchestrator/config.yaml and pushed per-root; global acceptances get a…