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 resolvegit 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/resolve)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jhlee0409/all-for-claudecode/resolve"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jhlee0409/all-for-claudecode/resolve.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01258 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00629 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00252 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
afc:resolve 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 — 163 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/afc:resolve — LLM Review Comment Resolution
Collects LLM bot review comments from a PR, classifies as VALID/NOISE/DISCUSS, fixes VALID items, resolves addressed threads on GitHub, and outputs a summary report.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS— (required) Any format that identifies a PR (number, URL, cross-repo, etc.)
PR Context
!gh pr view $(echo "$ARGUMENTS" | grep -oE '[0-9]+' | head -1) --json url,title,headRefName,comments 2>/dev/null || echo "PR_FETCH_FAILED"
Execution Steps
1. Prerequisites
gh --version >/dev/null 2>&1 && gh auth status >/dev/null 2>&1
Fails → [afc:resolve] Error: gh CLI not installed or not authenticated. → abort.
2. Identify PR
Extract PR number from $ARGUMENTS by intent. If owner/repo info is included, use --repo flag. Otherwise derive via gh repo view --json owner,name.
If "PR Context" above shows PR_FETCH_FAILED, parse $ARGUMENTS manually and retry.
3. Collect Review Data
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{number}/comments --paginate
Also fetch review threads for resolve (Step 8). See graphql.md for the query.
4. Filter Bot Comments
Keep only comments from authors whose login ends with [bot]. Tag outdated comments as [OUTDATED].
0 bot comments → No LLM bot review comments found on PR #{number}. → exit.
5. Check Working Tree
git status --porcelain
Dirty → list files, ask user to confirm before proceeding.
6. Classify
Read each comment's target file (±10 lines context), then classify:
| Class | When | Action |
|---|---|---|
| VALID | Objectively verifiable bug, single fix approach, resolvable within existing code | Fix |
| NOISE | Style preference, intentional design, false positive, [OUTDATED] |
Skip |
| DISCUSS | Requires judgment (new dependency, tradeoff, threshold, API change, etc.) | Ask |
Key: when in doubt, classify as DISCUSS. Be conservative with VALID.
7. Present Summary
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 163 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 79a706974bc8
afc:resolve is a skill published in the GitHub repository jhlee0409/all-for-claudecode (7 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,258 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.