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 Jartan-LLC/grimoire --skill address-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jartan-LLC/grimoireWrote 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/jartan-llc/grimoire/address-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jartan-llc/grimoire/address-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jartan-llc/grimoire/address-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/jartan-llc/grimoire/address-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jartan-llc/grimoire/address-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 | $0.00014 | $0.00909 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00364 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
address-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 4d 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 — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Address Review
Work through code review findings on a pull request, investigating each one and applying fixes where warranted.
Always pause for the user's decision on each finding -- even in auto mode, even if the reviewer or your own assessment recommends skipping. Auto mode grants tool access, not decision authority; the user decides what to fix, skip, or adjust.
Where the project's own rules say otherwise, follow them.
Process
1. Load Review
Determine the PR number from the user's request. Read the review in .claude/workspace/pr-<pr-number>-review.md, and what people have posted on the PR: its comments and reviews, and the comments on its lines, which gh pr view does not show:
gh pr view <pr-number> --comments
gh api --paginate repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<pr-number>/comments
If the saved review is missing, tell the user and ask where it is, or offer to run review-pr. Take each finding, from the saved review or posted, that no later commit, reply or line in the PR description has answered, and parse them into a numbered list grouped by severity (Critical > Important > Minor).
2. Check Out Branch
Ensure the PR's branch is checked out locally so fixes can be applied. Load the gitwise:commit-pr-writing and gitwise:github-conventions skills. Check the PR title and description (gh pr view <pr-number> --json title,body,baseRefName) against git diff <baseRefName>...HEAD, update what no longer holds as gitwise:commit-pr-writing says (gh pr edit <pr-number>), and tell the user what you changed.
3. Walk Through Findings
Before a fix edits code, read writing.md in the praxis:comment-hygiene skill; before it edits a document, read that document's file in the praxis:docs-patterns skill (its SKILL.md maps each document to its file). Read them even when the skill is already loaded: they cover the comments and documents a fix writes and the ones it makes false.
Work through each finding sequentially. For each one:
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +3 lines c3f820d4c1f3
- 12d ago Changed 03c1ec14eaa4
- 1mo ago First seen · 54 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 63f47a3abd67
address-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Jartan-LLC/grimoire (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 909 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-arch
Conduct a principal-level architecture review of a system, specification, diagram, or set of design decisions. Use when asked to review an architecture, evaluate a design, assess coupling/cohesion, check for anti-patterns, audit system boundaries, or produce an Architecture Review Board (ARB) style verdict. Also use…
review-impl
Review implementation changes for a given task against architectural standards. Use when reviewing a PR, evaluating recently committed code, assessing whether implementation changes are correct and architecturally sound, or when asked to 'review my changes', 'check this implementation', 'review what I built', 'is this…
babysit-pr
Resolve reviewer comments on a pull request or pasted feedback using a six-step evidence-grounded protocol. Use when asked to resolve review feedback, address reviewer comments, process PR comments, triage review feedback, apply review suggestions, handle code review feedback, decide which review comments to accept or…
verify-impl
Forensic audit of an implementation against its authoritative specification. Use whenever a specification document and an implementation are both in scope and the user asks any conformance question - even when not phrased explicitly: 'does this code match the spec', 'verify this implementation', 'check spec…
design-parity-review
Prove a Compose UI pull request matches its intended design by diffing the rendered code (candidate) against a Figma / Stitch / Claude Design reference and posting a parity verdict. Use when asked to check a PR against a design, wire up a design-parity bot, set up the committed reference cache so runs make zero Figma…
compose-preview-review
Review Compose UI previews and pull requests by rendering base and head, diffing them, and checking catalog design guidelines. Use for a UI design review, a UI PR locally or from a CI agent session (@claude mention), authoring an agent-opened PR that touches UI, or triaging flaky or unstable previews…