Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Indemnity83/logistics. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Indemnity83/logistics/mc/26.2/.claude/skills/pr-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Indemnity83/logisticsWrote 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/indemnity83/logistics/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/indemnity83/logistics/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/indemnity83/logistics/pr-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 | $0.00008 | $0.01925 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00962 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00385 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00193 |
Grade C, and why
pr-review scanned grade C 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 3d 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.
Hidden instructionshighPrompt injection
Directives inside HTML comments, invisible characters or bidirectional overrides are read by the model and not by the person reviewing the file.
<!-- VENDORED, DO NOT EDIT CASUALLY. Source: anthropics/claude-code, plugins/code-review/commands/code-review.md Revision: ee2a058351fbd15f6a8360be4139b333d3b8d9c6 (2026-09-03) Verbatim from upstream except for ONE delib How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 137 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Provide a code review for the given pull request.
Agent assumptions (applies to all agents and subagents):
- All tools are functional and will work without error. Do not test tools or make exploratory calls. Make sure this is clear to every subagent that is launched.
- Only call a tool if it is required to complete the task. Every tool call should have a clear purpose.
To do this, follow these steps precisely:
-
Launch a haiku agent to check if any of the following are true:
- The pull request is closed
- The pull request is a draft
- The pull request does not need code review (e.g. automated PR, trivial change that is obviously correct)
If any condition is true, stop and do not proceed.
Note: Still review Claude generated PR's.
-
Launch a haiku agent to return a list of file paths (not their contents) for all relevant CLAUDE.md files including:
- The root CLAUDE.md file, if it exists
- Any CLAUDE.md files in directories containing files modified by the pull request
-
Launch a sonnet agent to view the pull request and return a summary of the changes
-
Launch 4 agents in parallel to independently review the changes. Each agent should return the list of issues, where each issue includes a description and the reason it was flagged (e.g. "CLAUDE.md adherence", "bug"). The agents should do the following:
Agents 1 + 2: CLAUDE.md compliance sonnet agents Audit changes for CLAUDE.md compliance in parallel. Note: When evaluating CLAUDE.md compliance for a file, you should only consider CLAUDE.md files that share a file path with the file or parents.
Agent 3: Opus bug agent (parallel subagent with agent 4) Scan for obvious bugs. Focus only on the diff itself without reading extra context. Flag only significant bugs; ignore nitpicks and likely false positives. Do not flag issues that you cannot validate without looking at context outside of the git diff.
Agent 4: Opus bug agent (parallel subagent with agent 3) Look for problems that exist in the introduced code. This could be security issues, incorrect logic, etc. Only look for issues that fall within the changed code.
CRITICAL: We only want HIGH SIGNAL issues. Flag issues where:
- The code will fail to compile or parse (syntax errors, type errors, missing imports, unresolved references)
- The code will definitely produce wrong results regardless of inputs (clear logic errors)
- Clear, unambiguous CLAUDE.md violations where you can quote the exact rule being broken
Do NOT flag:
- Code style or quality concerns
- Potential issues that depend on specific inputs or state
- Subjective suggestions or improvements
If you are not certain an issue is real, do not flag it. False positives erode trust and waste reviewer time.
In addition to the above, each subagent should be told the PR title and description. This will help provide context regarding the author's 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.
- 3d ago First seen · 137 lines · 8 tokens per session scan C 7807fc9ffc57
pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Indemnity83/logistics (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 1,925 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (hidden instructions). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…
github-contributor
End-to-end playbook for shipping high-quality pull requests to open-source projects you don't maintain — discovery, CONTRIBUTING compliance, PR-size check, minimal-diff implementation, PR description with AI-assisted disclosure, conflict resolution, and post-submission maintainer interaction. Use whenever creating…
revdiff
Review diffs, files, and documents with inline annotations in a TUI overlay, or answer questions about revdiff usage, configuration, themes, and keybindings. Opens revdiff in agterm/tmux/zellij/herdr/kitty/wezterm/cmux/ghostty/iterm2/emacs-vterm, captures annotations, and addresses them. Works in git, hg, and jj repos…
write-pr
Reference standards for writing pull request titles and descriptions in the tldraw repository, plus the pre-flight comment sweep over the diff. Use as supporting guidance when another skill or workflow needs PR content standards, not as the user-facing create/update PR workflow.