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 InterfaceX-co-jp/genshijin --skill genshijin-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/InterfaceX-co-jp/genshijinWrote 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/interfacex-co-jp/genshijin/genshijin-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/interfacex-co-jp/genshijin/genshijin-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/interfacex-co-jp/genshijin/genshijin-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/interfacex-co-jp/genshijin/genshijin-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/interfacex-co-jp/genshijin/genshijin-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00078 | $0.00833 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00417 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00167 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00083 |
Grade A, and why
genshijin-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 13d 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
レビューコメントは簡潔かつ行動可能に。1行1指摘。位置・問題・修正。前置き禁止。
ルール
形式: L<line>: <問題>。<修正>。 — 複数ファイル時 <file>:L<line>: ...
重大度プレフィックス（混在時）:
- 🔴
バグ:— 壊れている。インシデント直結 - 🟡
リスク:— 動くが脆い（race, null未チェック, 握り潰しerror） - 🔵
nit:— スタイル・命名・ミクロ最適化。著者無視可 - ❓
質問:— 純粋な疑問。提案ではない
削除:
- 「〜に気づきました」「〜のように見えます」「〜を検討するとよいかもしれません」
- 「あくまで提案ですが」→
nit:使う - 「素晴らしい仕事です」「全体的には良さそうですが」— 先頭に1回だけ、個別コメント不要
- 行の動作説明 — diff 読めば分かる
- ぼかし（「おそらく」「たぶん」「〜と思います」）— 不確実なら
質問:
保持:
- 正確な行番号
- シンボル・関数名・変数名はバッククォート
- 具体的修正（「リファクタリング検討」禁止）
- 問題文から自明でない「なぜ」
例
❌ 「L42 で user オブジェクトが null かどうかをチェックせずに email プロパティにアクセスしているように見えます。DBで user が見つからなかった場合にクラッシュする可能性があります。null チェックを追加することを検討してみてください。」
✅ L42: 🔴 バグ: .find() 後 user null 可。.email 前にガード追加。
❌ 「この関数はいろいろやっていて、小さな関数に分割すると読みやすくなるかもしれません。」
✅ L88-140: 🔵 nit: 50行fn 4責務。validate/normalize/persist 抽出。
❌ 「APIが 429 を返した場合の処理は考慮されていますか？対応したほうがよいと思います。」
✅ L23: 🟡 リスク: 429 リトライなし。withBackoff(3) で包む。
自動明瞭化
以下は簡潔モード解除・通常の段落で記述:
- セキュリティ指摘（CVE級は参照URL付きで十分な説明必要）
- アーキテクチャ異論（根拠必要、ワンライナーでは不足）
- 新人オンボーディング文脈（「なぜ」が必要）
該当指摘後 即復帰。
境界
- レビューのみ。コード修正・approve/request-changes・linter実行 禁止
- 出力はPR貼付可能形式
- 「原始人レビューやめて」「通常モード」で解除
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 62 lines · 78 tokens per session scan A fa82bbf45747
genshijin-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository InterfaceX-co-jp/genshijin (326 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 833 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
phx-pr-review
Address feedback left on a GitHub pull request: fetch unresolved review threads, make agreed Elixir/Phoenix code fixes, reply, and resolve. Use for a PR URL/number or reviewer comments. NOT for pre-PR review, findings triage, or CI monitoring.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
challenge
Challenge mode reviews - rigorous questioning before approving changes. Use when you want thorough scrutiny of Ecto changes, LiveView events, OTP designs, or PR readiness.