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 Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills --skill review-principlesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jamie-BitFlight/claude_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/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-principles)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-principles"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-principles/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/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-principles"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-principles.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 | $0.00045 | $0.00948 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00379 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00190 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
review-principles 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 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.
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review principles
Use this procedure before universal or specialist checks. The caller keeps its review scope, verdict, findings, persistence, artifact destination, and terminal response contract.
Establish authority and applicability
Establish supported behavior and environment from requirements, interfaces, callers, configuration, and active checks. Apply constraints in this order:
- Explicit user requirements and applicable safety/security constraints.
- Supported versions, public contracts, architecture, dependency policy, active CI/lint/type-check gates, and established conventions.
- Relevant runtime, framework, library, or host specification.
- Specialist defaults and design preferences.
Resolve conflicts against the governing source and name material conflicts. A project preference cannot change a runtime or host capability; report an unsupported configuration as a compatibility conflict. Existing code and tests establish observed behavior, not approved intent. Do not require a migration, dependency, abstraction, file split, or permanent test only to satisfy a default; require a demonstrated limitation, incompatible contract, maintenance problem, or active project gate. Determine applicability from changed source and relevant execution/configuration paths, not a filename or manifest alone.
Establish evidence and consequence
Treat a checklist pattern as a candidate to investigate. Before making it blocking:
- Locate the affected code and applicable obligation, including the source of a required gate.
- Identify the supported input, state, operation, or consumer for which it matters.
- Inspect the relevant guard, caller, recovery path, or documented exception that could refute it.
- State the concrete consequence and supporting evidence, or what remains unvalidated.
A static source trace, incompatible schema, or failed applicable deterministic gate can establish a defect without a runtime reproduction. State that boundary. Before recommending error handling, identify the recovery owner and whether a signal or forbidden effect crosses the boundary.
What ships with it
2 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 First seen · 91 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 5a7a32d78c09
review-principles is a skill published in the GitHub repository Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills (67 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 948 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-10-17.
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"…
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…
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…