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 in-the-loop-labs/pair-review --skill loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/in-the-loop-labs/pair-reviewWrote 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/in-the-loop-labs/pair-review/loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/in-the-loop-labs/pair-review/loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/in-the-loop-labs/pair-review/loop/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/in-the-loop-labs/pair-review/loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/in-the-loop-labs/pair-review/loop.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 4 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 MCP Rug Pull · line 76 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium Rogue Agent · line 162 Skill establishes unauthorized persistence across sessions via cron jobs, startup scripts, or state files. Session persistence allows an attacker to maintain access beyond the current interaction.Fix: Remove any persistence mechanisms (cron jobs, startup scripts, state files). Skills should not maintain state across sessions without explicit user consent.
- medium Data Exfiltration · line 165 Data is being sent to an external URL. This could be legitimate telemetry or data exfiltration. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Verify the destination URL is trusted and necessary. Remove or replace with documented APIs. Ensure no secrets, tokens, or PII are transmitted.
- low Excessive Agency · line 144 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 | $0.00085 | $0.03191 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.01276 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00638 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00319 |
Grade A, and why
loop scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
loop: `curl -s http://localhost:7247/health` → it is pair-review iff the How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 258 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
pair-loop
You are a thin orchestrator. pair-review does the heavy lifting — multi-level, multi-model council reviews with persistence and a web UI. Your job is judgment: what to send for review, how to triage what comes back, what to fix, when to ask the user, and when to stop.
Reviews run through one execution mode: the headless CLI. It is synchronous (no polling), emits JSON, and needs no server. The HTTP API is used for exactly one optional thing: writing triage back so a running web UI shows reality (see Write triage back).
Any text in the user's request beyond the named arguments is the objective — what to build or change. If there is no objective, the loop runs over the changes already in the working tree.
Hard rules
These are not judgment calls:
- Never report "clean" or "ready" unless a full-quality council round, instructed to report only merge-blockers, came back with an empty finding list. A cheaper or broader round cannot grant the final verdict.
- Never silently stop. If the loop is not converging or hits
maxRounds, say so, list the outstanding findings, and (when a server is up) link the review URL. - Sequence strictly: fix → write triage back → then run the next round.
- One review at a time. Never run two reviews concurrently for the same repo.
- Drive the loop from the session that owns it — never delegate a review round to a subagent. A round is a 15–40 minute external process, and a background process is killed when the session that spawned it ends. A subagent's session ends the moment it returns, so a round launched inside one dies mid-flight and the run is lost. If you are reading this from inside a subagent, do not start a round — hand the loop back to the main session. (Subagents are still fine for work that finishes inside the agent: implementing the objective, applying a batch of fixes.)
- Do not commit or push. Leave changes in the working tree. New
(untracked) files are included automatically whenever the review scope ends
at
untracked— which the default scope (unstaged..untracked) does — so nogit add -N(intent-to-add) is needed. - Report failures faithfully. A failed run (
"ok": false, non-zero exit) is reported as what it is — never papered over as "no findings".
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 First seen · 258 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 3aa05da108bf
loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository in-the-loop-labs/pair-review (69 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 3,191 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…