Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jd-solanki/airig. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jd-solanki/airig/main/.ai/skills/review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jd-solanki/airigWrote 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/jd-solanki/airig/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jd-solanki/airig/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jd-solanki/airig/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/jd-solanki/airig/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jd-solanki/airig/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 | $0.00095 | $0.00932 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00466 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00093 |
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 9d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to review — 1 line differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:
- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?
Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point
Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.
Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.
2. Identify the spec source
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
- Issue references in the commit messages (
#123,Closes #45, GitLab!67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow indocs/agents/issue-tracker.md. - A path the user passed as an argument.
- A PRD/spec file under
docs/,specs/, or.scratch/matching the branch name or feature. - If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
3. Identify the standards sources
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.
4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel
Send a single message with two Agent tool calls. Use the general-purpose subagent for both.
Standards sub-agent prompt — include:
- The full diff command and commit list.
- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3.
- The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — every place the diff violates a documented standard. Cite the standard (file + the rule). Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 69 lines · 95 tokens per session scan A 80f0b9cd89f3
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jd-solanki/airig (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 932 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review, differing in 1 line, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…