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 impactcrew/dont-be-a-sloperator --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/impactcrew/dont-be-a-sloperatorWrote 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/impactcrew/dont-be-a-sloperator/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/impactcrew/dont-be-a-sloperator/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/impactcrew/dont-be-a-sloperator/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00029 | $0.00688 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00344 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00069 |
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 8d 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review - Code Review
Run a multi-angle code review on the current branch using three specialist agents in parallel.
Usage
Type /review to review all changes on the current branch against main. Or /review <specific file or area> to narrow the scope.
What it does
Launches three agents simultaneously, each reviewing the same diff from a different angle:
- Code Reviewer - Code quality, bugs, performance problems, maintainability
- Security Auditor - OWASP Top 10, injection risks, auth/authz issues, dependency vulnerabilities
- Architect Reviewer - Structural integrity, design patterns, coupling, scalability
Each agent runs on Sonnet for speed. Results are consolidated into a single report.
Instructions
Determine the review target:
- If
$ARGUMENTSis empty, review the full diff of the current branch againstmain - If
$ARGUMENTSnames a file or directory, scope the review to that area - If on
mainwith uncommitted changes, review the working tree diff
Step 1: Gather context
git diff main...HEAD --stat
git diff main...HEAD
If $ARGUMENTS specifies a scope, filter to those paths.
Step 2: Launch reviewers
Launch all three agents in parallel using the Agent tool with run_in_background: true:
Agent 1: Code Review
- subagent_type: "code-reviewer"
- Prompt: "Review this diff for code quality issues. Check for bugs, performance problems, dead code, unclear naming, missing error handling, and adherence to existing code patterns. Prioritize issues by severity. Diff: [include diff]"
Agent 2: Security Audit
- subagent_type: "security-auditor"
- Prompt: "Audit this diff for security vulnerabilities. Check for OWASP Top 10 issues, injection risks, authentication/authorization problems, secrets exposure, insecure dependencies, and missing input validation. Prioritize by CVSS-equivalent severity. Diff: [include diff]"
Agent 3: Architecture Review
- subagent_type: "architect-review"
- Prompt: "Review this diff for architectural concerns. Check for proper separation of concerns, coupling issues, violated abstractions, missing patterns, scalability risks, and consistency with the existing codebase structure. Diff: [include diff]"
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 84 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 0fb922893c65
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository impactcrew/dont-be-a-sloperator (10 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 688 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
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.
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…