Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jhd3197/CachiBot. 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/jhd3197/CachiBot/main/.claude/skills/review-fix/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jhd3197/CachiBotWrote 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/jhd3197/cachibot/review-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jhd3197/cachibot/review-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jhd3197/cachibot/review-fix/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/jhd3197/cachibot/review-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jhd3197/cachibot/review-fix.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 | $0.00038 | $0.01679 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00839 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00336 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00168 |
Grade A, and why
review-fix 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 193 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Fix — Plan & Execute from Last Review
Read the most recent .reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-review.md, plan fixes for all findings
grouped by priority, then execute every planned fix with atomic commits. Produces
two artifacts: a review-plan and a review-execution log.
Instructions
Phase 0 — Find the Latest Review
- Glob for
.reviews/*-review.mdand pick the most recent file by date. - Read the full review file. Parse every finding into a list of
{ severity, reviewer, file, line, description }entries. - If no review file exists, tell the user to run
/code-reviewfirst and stop.
Phase 1 — Plan
Spawn 4 parallel planning agents (Task tool, subagent_type: Plan) that each
receive the full findings list filtered to their scope. Each agent returns a
structured list of fix actions.
Agent scopes
| Agent | Scope |
|---|---|
| backend | Findings from Tina, Marcus, Priya, Carlos, Oscar that touch cachibot/ |
| frontend | Findings from Tina, Zoe, Luna that touch frontend/src/ |
| data | Findings from Carlos (storage/db layer) |
| tests | Findings from Derek (test coverage gaps) |
Findings that span multiple scopes go to every relevant agent.
Each planning agent must:
- Group related findings that can be fixed together (same file, same pattern).
- For each group, produce:
- What: one-line summary of the change
- Files: list of files to modify
- How: 2-3 sentence implementation approach
- Severity: highest severity in the group (Fix > Improve > Note)
- Risk: Low / Medium / High (does this change behavior or just style?)
- Depends on: other group IDs this group must wait for (if any)
- Order groups by: Fix severity first, then by dependency order.
- Skip any finding rated Note — notes are informational only.
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 · 193 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A e92ccf01fd6b
review-fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository jhd3197/CachiBot (19 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,679 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
security-review
Complete a security review of the pending changes on the current branch.
code-review
Review the current diff, or a PR number/branch/path target, for correctness bugs and reuse/simplification/efficiency cleanups at the given effort level (low/medium: fewer, high-confidence findings; high→max: broader coverage, may include uncertain findings; ultra: deep multi-agent review in the cloud); with no level…
contribute-to-eliza
Finish and prove a scoped elizaOS GitHub issue, or independently review and repair an open elizaOS pull request. Use when contributing compute to elizaOS by selecting unclaimed work, implementing or reviewing changes, adding real tests and evidence, validating artifacts, or preparing a contribution for maintainer…
simplify
Review the changed code for reuse, simplification, efficiency, and altitude cleanups, then apply the fixes. Quality only — it does not hunt for bugs; use /code-review for that.
ha-code-review
Hope-native review of uncommitted, staged, commit, branch, or PR changes: discover concrete regressions, independently verify candidates, and report actionable findings first without speculative noise.
security-diff-scan
Use when the user asks for a security review of a pull request, commit, branch diff, working-tree patch, or other Git-backed change set.