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 javiarmesto/ALDC-AL-Development-Collection --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/javiarmesto/ALDC-AL-Development-CollectionWrote 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/javiarmesto/aldc-al-development-collection/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/javiarmesto/aldc-al-development-collection/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/javiarmesto/aldc-al-development-collection/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/javiarmesto/aldc-al-development-collection/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/javiarmesto/aldc-al-development-collection/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 | $0.00032 | $0.00301 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00120 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00060 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00030 |
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 3d 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
/aldc:review
Delegate this to the aldc:al-developer-reviewer subagent with the Agent/Task tool (subagent_type: "aldc:al-developer-reviewer", run_in_background: false), so that it runs with its own read-only tool list instead of this session's. In the prompt, pass the input below, the project root, the scope (changed objects or the files named) and any plan or spec path under .claude/plans/. Return its report to the user as it comes, without rewriting its verdict. Only if the host cannot launch subagents, read ${CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR}/claude-plugin/agents/al-developer-reviewer.md in full and act as that agent, stating that the read-only tool list is not enforced.
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Requirement artifacts live under .claude/plans/ in the project; run /aldc:al-initialize once if that folder does not exist.
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.
- 3d ago Changed 0e2c32b06fb6
- 29d ago Changed 0a73951d9bc7
- 1mo ago First seen · 16 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 06964b59cb58
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository javiarmesto/ALDC-AL-Development-Collection (112 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 301 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 2026-09-19.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-and-quality
Use when reviewing Android code (own or others'). Five-axis review framework: Correctness, Readability, Architecture, Security, Performance. Categorized findings with Kotlin/Compose-specific checks.
code-simplification
Use when code is harder to understand than it needs to be. Guides incremental simplification that preserves behavior exactly, following project conventions and Kotlin idioms.
doubt-driven-development
Use when a decision is high-stakes and hard to reverse — architecture choices, data migrations, dependency adoption, public API contracts. Adversarial self-review that attacks the chosen approach before the code does, instead of defending the first idea that worked.
agentmaster-review
Adversarial code review with the agentmaster evidence pipeline. Use when the user asks for an agentmaster review of a diff, branch, or change set, or invokes /agentmaster-review. Assumes the code is guilty until proven working across correctness, structure, testability, flexibility, and security axes, with severity…
sql-code-review
Universal SQL code review assistant that performs comprehensive security, maintainability, and code quality analysis across all SQL databases (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server, Oracle). Focuses on SQL injection prevention, access control, code standards, and anti-pattern detection. Complements SQL optimisation prompt for…
code-review
Applies a consistent, language-agnostic review framework to any code change. It evaluates code across five dimensions, produces prioritised findings with inline suggestions, and distinguishes blockers (must fix before merge) from improvements (worth addressing but not blocking).