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 jhlee0409/all-for-claudecode --skill pr-commentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jhlee0409/all-for-claudecodeWrote 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/jhlee0409/all-for-claudecode/pr-comment)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jhlee0409/all-for-claudecode/pr-comment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jhlee0409/all-for-claudecode/pr-comment/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/jhlee0409/all-for-claudecode/pr-comment"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jhlee0409/all-for-claudecode/pr-comment.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 | $0.01400 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00700 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00280 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00140 |
Grade A, and why
afc:pr-comment 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 8d 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 — 169 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/afc:pr-comment — Post PR Review to GitHub
Analyzes a PR and posts a structured review comment to GitHub. Reuses existing triage reports when available. Asks for user confirmation before posting.
Pre-fetch
!gh pr view $0 --json number,title,headRefName,author,body,additions,deletions,changedFiles,labels,reviewDecision,state,url 2>/dev/null || echo "PR_FETCH_FAILED"
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS— PR number (required), with optional severity filter42— Analyze and post review for PR #4242 --severity critical,warning— Only include Critical and Warning findings42 --severity critical— Only include Critical findings
Parse:
- Extract the PR number (first numeric argument)
- Extract
--severityfilter if present (comma-separated:critical,warning,info) - If no PR number found, ask the user: "Which PR number should I review?"
Execution Steps
1. Collect PR Information
Use the pre-fetched PR metadata. If the pre-fetch returned PR_FETCH_FAILED, output [afc:pr-comment] Error: PR not found or gh not available. and abort.
Fetch the diff:
gh pr diff {number}
Verify the PR is open. If closed/merged, inform the user and ask whether to proceed anyway.
2. Check for Existing Triage Report
ls -t .claude/afc/memory/triage/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -5
If a report from today contains PR #{number} analysis, reuse it as the review basis instead of re-analyzing from scratch.
3. Analyze PR (if no triage data available)
Review the diff using perspectives A–E from review/perspectives.md:
- A. Code Quality — style compliance, naming, unnecessary complexity
- B. Architecture — layer violations, boundary crossings, structural concerns
- C. Security — XSS, injection, sensitive data exposure, auth issues
- D. Performance — latency concerns, unnecessary computation, resource leaks
- E. Maintainability — function/file size, naming clarity, readability
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 169 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A fd382b61291a
afc:pr-comment is a skill published in the GitHub repository jhlee0409/all-for-claudecode (7 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,400 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
audit-agents-skills
Audit Claude Code agents, skills, and commands for quality and production readiness. Use when evaluating skill quality, checking production readiness scores, or comparing agents against best-practice templates.
design-patterns
Detect, suggest, and evaluate GoF design patterns in TypeScript/JavaScript codebases. Use when refactoring code, applying singleton/factory/observer/strategy patterns, reviewing pattern quality, or finding stack-native alternatives for React, Angular, NestJS, and Vue.
pr-triage
4-phase PR backlog management with audit, deep code review, validated comments, and optional worktree setup. Use when triaging pull requests, catching up on pending code reviews, or managing a backlog of open PRs. Args: 'all' to review all, PR numbers to focus (e.g. '42 57'), 'en'/'fr' for language, no arg = audit…
eval-skills
Audit all skills in the current project for frontmatter completeness, effort level appropriateness, allowed-tools scoping, and content quality. Produces a scored report with effort-level recommendations for each skill. Use when onboarding to a new project, reviewing skill quality before shipping, or adding effort…
review-pr
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.