Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add InjayTseng/graph-engineering-on-research/plugin install graph-engineeringWrote 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/injaytseng/graph-engineering-on-research/adversarial-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/injaytseng/graph-engineering-on-research/adversarial-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/injaytseng/graph-engineering-on-research/adversarial-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/injaytseng/graph-engineering-on-research/adversarial-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/injaytseng/graph-engineering-on-research/adversarial-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 | $0.00037 | $0.00289 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00144 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00058 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
adversarial-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 10d 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.
What it actually says
Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/prompts/03-adversarial-review.md in full — this template has no single copy block; the whole file is the workflow: Prep, then attacker dispatch, then integration rules, then outputs. The document under review is the user's input below.
Document under review: $ARGUMENTS
Harness rules:
- If the input above is empty, ask the user which document or set of frozen conclusions to attack — do not pick one yourself.
- If the input above is a file path, read that file; it is the document under review.
- If the input above (or the document itself) is in Chinese, use
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/prompts/03-adversarial-review.zh-TW.mdinstead and work in Traditional Chinese throughout. - You do the Prep and Integration layers yourself in this context — the template marks them as the layers that cannot be outsourced. Each attacker MUST be a separate subagent with fresh context that sees only its own de-identified slice, dispatched in parallel. Never simulate attackers sequentially in this context.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 18 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A aaddc231b884
adversarial-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository InjayTseng/graph-engineering-on-research (11 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 289 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
code-review
A code-review checklist for examining code without rewriting it. It checks correctness, security, readability and performance, then labels findings by seriousness.
pr-checks
Run comprehensive PR checks including reviewing CodeRabbit comments, ensuring PR description quality, running pre-commit hooks, tests, and validation. Use on an existing PR to address review feedback.
asa-evidence-grounding-auditor
Use when auditing whether a skill decomposition is evidence-grounded, over-inference-safe, and publishable.
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, quality, and efficiency. Use when the user asks for a code-quality pass, requests "/simplify", or asks to audit recent changes for duplication or technical debt.
continual-learning
Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt…
pandic-office
Convert Markdown to PDF (or DOCX/EPUB/HTML) using the pandoc CLI. Use when asked to produce a PDF report, brief, summary, or any document where the input is Markdown and the output should be a polished, paginated file.