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 agentmods add skills/jcottam/agent-resources/review-prnpx skills add jcottam/agent-resources --skill review-prgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jcottam/agent-resourcesWrote 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/jcottam/agent-resources/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jcottam/agent-resources/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jcottam/agent-resources/review-pr.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00112 | $0.03617 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.01809 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00723 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00362 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 6d 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 — 388 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review PR
Forensic, stage-aware pull request review. Reconstructs the commit narrative, tests the PR's architectural premises against project reality, and produces a review comment the user can post directly.
Three core insights:
- Most bad reviews happen because the reviewer looks at the final diff in isolation and misses the why.
- Most over-engineered PRs happen because the contributor builds for imagined future requirements instead of the current problem.
- Most shallow reviews happen because the reviewer catalogs file-level findings without first understanding what the change means for the product. Think about the product impact before diving into the code.
Phase 1 — Orientation
Before reading any code, establish context.
1. Get PR metadata
git remote -v
GitHub (primary path):
gh pr view <N> --json baseRefName,headRefName,title,body,commits,files,statusCheckRollup,reviews
Fallback (no gh CLI or non-GitHub remote):
git log --oneline <base-branch>..<pr-branch>
git diff --stat <base-branch>...<pr-branch>
Use the resolved base/head branch names for all subsequent commands.
2. Read project conventions
Before forming opinions, read the project's own rules:
AGENTS.md— architecture, boundaries, "always do / never do" lists.cursor/rules/— workspace rules that apply to all changesCONTRIBUTING.md,.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.mdif present
If none of these exist, infer conventions from the existing codebase: look at 2–3 files in the same directory as the PR's primary changes. Match naming, error handling patterns, test structure, and abstraction level already established.
These are the standards the PR should be measured against, not generic best practices.
3. Read the PR description and commit messages
git log <base-branch>..<pr-branch> --reverse --format="%h %s%n%n%b"
Extract what the PR claims to do. Do not treat claims as fact until the diff confirms them. Form your own judgment of scope and risk before reading existing review comments or the user's opinion.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 388 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A bc168905d284
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository jcottam/agent-resources (30 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 3,617 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
workers-best-practices
Reviews and authors Cloudflare Workers code against production best practices. Load when writing new Workers, reviewing Worker code, configuring wrangler.jsonc, or checking for common Workers anti-patterns (streaming, floating promises, global state, secrets, bindings, observability). Biases towards retrieval from…
find-journalists
Build, refine, dedupe, and enrich small fit-checked journalist lists for newsjack campaigns. Uses the newsjack CLI (preferred) or the medialyst MCP for news search and journalist enrichment, and falls back to a best-effort local mode with no verified contacts; the agent owns how returned data is organized.
story-origin-check
Recover the first public timestamp and canonical major coverage for a newsjacking signal, then decide whether newer coverage is the same story, a different story, or a materially new development.
relevance-coarse-filter
Cheap, high-recall first-pass filter that removes obvious junk from a detector candidate pool before expensive story-origin research and PR judgment. Decides keep, monitoronly, or reject — never ranks, writes angles, verifies dates, or decides whether to pitch.
annotating-task-lineage
Annotate Airflow tasks with data lineage using inlets and outlets. Use when the user wants to add lineage metadata to tasks, specify input/output datasets, or enable lineage tracking for operators without built-in OpenLineage extraction.
managing-astro-local-env
Manage local Airflow environment with Astro CLI (Docker and standalone modes). Use when the user wants to start, stop, or restart Airflow, view logs, query the Airflow API, troubleshoot, or fix environment issues. For project setup, see setting-up-astro-project.