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 jl-cmd/claude-dev-env --skill reviewer-gatesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jl-cmd/claude-dev-envWrote 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/jl-cmd/claude-dev-env/reviewer-gates)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jl-cmd/claude-dev-env/reviewer-gates"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jl-cmd/claude-dev-env/reviewer-gates.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Agent Snooping · line 17 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00069 | $0.02172 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.01086 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00434 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00217 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-gates 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewer Gates
Core principle: one place decides whether an external reviewer is engaged. A caller never hand-parses CLAUDE_REVIEWS_DISABLED, never re-queries Copilot quota mid-run, and never invents a Bugbot trigger phrase.
How callers invoke this
- Skill-capable contexts (a lead session with the
Skilltool):Skill({skill: "reviewer-gates", args: "--skill <caller> <gate> [gate parameters]"}). - Fallback (a subagent or teammate without the
Skilltool): the caller's spawn prompt says "Read~/.claude/skills/reviewer-gates/SKILL.mdand apply the<gate>section with the parameters below."
Every invocation carries the caller's identity (--skill <caller>, e.g. pr-converge, bugteam). The refusal line in Gate 1 and every logged decision names the caller, so a multi-skill session's transcript shows which loop each gate served.
Gate 1: Reviewer opt-out (CLAUDE_REVIEWS_DISABLED)
The CLAUDE_REVIEWS_DISABLED environment variable is a comma-separated token list (case-insensitive, whitespace-tolerant). Four tokens exist:
| Token | Disables |
|---|---|
bugteam |
The whole bug-audit family: /bugteam, clean-room audit (code-quality-agent), and audit dispatch in /pr-converge |
bugbot |
Cursor Bugbot triggering and polling |
copilot |
GitHub Copilot review requests and polling |
codex |
Codex reviewer requests and polling |
Cursor Bugbot is off by default: it runs only when CLAUDE_REVIEWS_ENABLED lists bugbot, and a bugbot token in CLAUDE_REVIEWS_DISABLED keeps it off even when the opt-in lists it.
Run the shared parser — never an inline shell parse:
python "$HOME/.claude/_shared/pr-loop/scripts/reviews_disabled.py" --reviewer <bugbot|bugteam|copilot|codex>
- Exit 0 — the named reviewer is disabled for this run (opted out, or, for Bugbot, off by default without the
CLAUDE_REVIEWS_ENABLEDopt-in). A skill whose whole run depends on that reviewer responds with its refusal line and stops. A copilot- or bugteam-dependent caller names the opt-out:/<caller> is disabled via CLAUDE_REVIEWS_DISABLED.A Bugbot-dependent caller off by default names the opt-in the run needs:/<caller> is disabled: Cursor Bugbot needs a bugbot token in CLAUDE_REVIEWS_ENABLED.A loop that merely includes the reviewer as one gate marks the reviewer down (bugbot_down = true,copilot_down = true,codex_down = true) and continues on its remaining signals. - Exit 1 — the reviewer is available; continue.
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 · 113 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A e92cf19c56a5
reviewer-gates is a skill published in the GitHub repository jl-cmd/claude-dev-env (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 2,172 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
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…