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 jamesyang124/agent-skills --skill ado-pr-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jamesyang124/agent-skillsWrote 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/jamesyang124/agent-skills/ado-pr-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jamesyang124/agent-skills/ado-pr-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamesyang124/agent-skills/ado-pr-code-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/jamesyang124/agent-skills/ado-pr-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamesyang124/agent-skills/ado-pr-code-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 | $0.00191 | $0.11260 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00076 | $0.04504 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.02252 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.01126 |
Grade A, and why
ado-pr-code-review 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 7d 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.
1. **Phase 1** — build a minimal feedback loop to confirm the vulnerability or broken contract is actually reachable (e.g. craft a curl that triggers the missing validation, or a test that reproduces the missing `code` f How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 829 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Azure DevOps PR Code Review
Companion skills (optional)
Both come from mattpocock/skills (skills/engineering/<name>/). If one is not installed, the review
still runs: skip that part and say so in the summary.
code-review— optional help for the standards and spec pass (Step 5); the pass runs without it.diagnosing-bugs— the repro loop for findings whose cause is unclear (see the last section). It replaces the olderdiagnoseskill; do not referencediagnose.
PR review that posts inline LOC-level comments on the diff. It finds, verifies, then posts:
- Commit provenance (Step 2.5)
- Security lenses A–H (Step 3)
- Runtime correctness and resource leaks (Step 4)
- Standards and spec (Step 5)
- Test coverage (Step 5.1) and impact outside the diff (Step 5.2)
- Verify every candidate finding (Step 5.5)
- Post the verified findings inline (Step 6), then one summary thread (Step 7)
Findings use the format and rules in references/review-findings.md. Read it before Step 3. Run Steps 3, 4, 5, 5.1 and 5.2
as separate fresh sub-agents in parallel when the agent supports them (one per pass, not forked from this context),
each returning the JSON findings of that file. That file's part 1 says what to read and from where, part 2 how the
passes run (at most 6 sub-agents at once, the second look for large or high-risk PRs, read-only, model, rule-file edits), part 4 how findings are
verified, and part 5 what is posted. Without sub-agents, run the passes one after another and say so in the
summary. The review never approves, votes, or completes the PR (see Notes).
Arguments
| Token | Meaning |
|---|---|
| an Azure DevOps PR URL | required — the PR to review; parsed in Step 1 |
--preview |
run every step up to Step 5.5, then show the inline comments and the summary exactly as they would be posted, and call no write tool. Post them only if the user then says so |
--fast |
ask nothing during the run: the PR-description update becomes a summary item, not an offer. Posting still follows --preview |
--deep |
deep review: always run the second look and the tie-break layer for criticals left at medium confidence (references/review-findings.md parts 2 and 4) |
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 7d ago Changed · +119 lines · +4 tokens per session 30a0876897de
- 8d ago Changed · +207 lines · +57 tokens per session 3f6e19234622
- 1mo ago First seen · 503 lines · 130 tokens per session scan A b0cd008bd706
ado-pr-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jamesyang124/agent-skills (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 191 tokens to every session and 11,260 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-31.
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"…
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…
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…
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…