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 jaroslavsoucek-art/Giovanni/plugin install giovanniWrote 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/jaroslavsoucek-art/giovanni/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jaroslavsoucek-art/giovanni/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jaroslavsoucek-art/giovanni/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/jaroslavsoucek-art/giovanni/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jaroslavsoucek-art/giovanni/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 | $0.01813 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00725 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00363 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00181 |
Grade A, and why
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 today.
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 — 121 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/giovanni:review
Run adversarial review on a draft (decision record, position paper, board material, customer message, fundraise narrative, constitution patch, predictive forecast). This command is a thin shell — the adversarial mode policy, four-pass protocol, strongest counter-case requirement, and SHIP/REWRITE/KILL discipline live in the giovanni:adversarial-reviewer agent. This file is the invocation contract.
Usage
/giovanni:review <draft-path> # required positional — path to draft file
/giovanni:review <draft-path> --position "..." # optional one-line position statement
/giovanni:review <draft-path> --audience external # internal | external | mixed
If <draft-path> is omitted, the orchestrator looks for the draft inline in the message (paste-mode). If neither is present → STOP with usage hint.
Argument syntax
| Arg | Type | Default | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
<draft-path> |
positional | — | Relative path to draft file (e.g. deliverables/<file>, memory/briefs/<file>, memory/decisions/<file>). |
--position "<text>" |
parameterized string | derived from draft | One-line statement of the position the draft is defending. If absent, the agent derives it from the draft itself. If the agent can't derive a clear position, that ambiguity is itself a finding. |
--audience <level> |
parameterized | inferred | internal / external / mixed. If absent, the agent infers from path and content. |
Quoted strings supported. --flag=value and --flag value both work.
Pre-flight (binding — STOP on failure)
Before spawning giovanni:adversarial-reviewer:
- CWD check. Working directory is a Giovanni repo. Otherwise STOP.
- Agent definition present.
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/agents/adversarial-reviewer.mdexists. Missing → STOP. - Draft accessible. If
<draft-path>is set: file exists and is readable. Otherwise STOP:ERROR: cannot read <path>. - Trigger sanity check. If the draft contains explicit out-of-scope markers ("brainstorming", "thinking out loud", "[no review yet]"), surface advisory:
WARN: draft contains brainstorming-mode marker. Adversarial review may suppress the exploration that's the point. Proceed? [y/N]. Default = abort. - No required state files. Adversarial review is read-only over the draft and repo — no state files to validate.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- today First seen · 121 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A a8017ce56ff4
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jaroslavsoucek-art/Giovanni (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,813 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
code-review
Perform thorough code reviews, identify bugs, suggest improvements, and explain code quality issues. Use when the user shares code and asks for a review, bug hunt, or quality feedback.
Simplify
Review code in the current working tree across three independent dimensions (reuse, quality, efficiency) and synthesise a small punch-list of high-value cleanups.
github-code-review
Comprehensive GitHub code review with AI-powered swarm coordination.
Pair Programming
AI-assisted pair programming with multiple modes (driver/navigator/switch), real-time verification, quality monitoring, and comprehensive testing. Supports TDD, debugging, refactoring, and learning sessions. Features automatic role switching, continuous code review, security scanning, and performance optimization with…
multi-reviewer-patterns
Coordinate parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions with finding deduplication, severity calibration, and consolidated reporting. Use this skill when organizing multi-reviewer code reviews, calibrating finding severity, or consolidating review results.
code-review-excellence
Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.