Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jongwony/epistemic-protocols. 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/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/main/.claude/skills/formal-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocolsWrote 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/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/formal-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/formal-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/formal-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/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/formal-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jongwony/epistemic-protocols/formal-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00098 | $0.03182 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.01591 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00636 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00318 |
Grade A, and why
formal-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 3d 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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Formal Lens Review
A one-pass review of a PR diff through a fixed formal lens panel — Category Theory ∥ Type Theory ∥ Operational Semantics — posted back to the PR as a single consolidated comment for human reviewers. The panel is pinned at definition time rather than derived from the diff, so a formally-structured protocol change gets a meticulous, complete formal review on the same three axes every run.
Why this is a project skill
The formal triple (morphism coherence, type soundness, evaluation-order consistency) is this repository's standing review axis — protocol SKILL.md files carry category-theoretic formal blocks, TYPES / PHASE TRANSITIONS, and operational-semantics state machines. /frame, run generically, is unlikely to select all three formal lenses at once on a given diff; pinning them here guarantees the formal partial review is exhaustive every run. The fixed panel is therefore project-specific and belongs in the project skill layer. This skill is self-contained — it composes /frame and describes its own isolated-then-adversarial substrate; prothesis is its one plugin dependency.
Caller Signature
/formal-review [scope?]
scope : PR number | (implicit) -- optional; PR number, or implicit current-branch PR / working-tree detection
-- absent → Phase 0 detects it
When scope is omitted, Phase 0 detects it (current-branch PR, else working tree). The lens panel is fixed in this skill — Category Theory, Type Theory, Operational Semantics — and is not a runtime parameter; the scope is the only argument.
Pipeline Overview
/formal-review [scope?]
Phase 0 : scope detect (PR number | current-branch PR | working tree) + free-exit — no SHA pinning, tools fetch live
Phase 1 : diff prep — fetch diff live (gh pr diff {N} | git diff HEAD); read file fate (A/M/D/R) from diff headers; state diff-reading conventions
Phase 2 : fixed-lens review (isolated → adversarial) — pin the formal triple (Category Theory ∥ Type Theory ∥ OpSem) via /frame; substrate described in-skill (not /conduct)
2a isolated per-lens analysis (independence) — each finding: file:line + lens tag + severity + evidence-grounded rationale, confidence ≥ 80%
2b adversarial cross-verification — refute each finding; survive → Phase 3, defeated → recorded in the Phase 4 comment as refuted (relay drop w/ basis)
Phase 3 : direction-error guard (verify) — cross-check review text vs diff-header fate; Added-but-described-as-deleted → warning augment (relay)
Phase 4 : post comment — one consolidated PR comment carrying every finding (path:line in text); substrate write → harness permission
free-exit : user may end the review at any time (declared once in Phase 0)
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.
- 3d ago Changed 7868db865040
- 4d ago Changed · -5 lines · -4 tokens per session e3b40c5af512
- 5d ago Changed · -1 lines 547e33c0b221
- 10d ago First seen · 134 lines · 102 tokens per session scan A 972a67a642c0
formal-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jongwony/epistemic-protocols (161 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 98 tokens to every session and 3,182 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.
flow-next-spec-completion-review
Verify that a spec's completed tasks fully implement the spec requirements. Use at spec completion before close.
flow-next-plan-review
Carmack-level review of a flow-next spec or plan via the configured backend. Use when asked to review a plan or spec.
flow-next-worktree-kit
Manage git worktrees (create/list/switch/cleanup) and copy .env files. Use for parallel feature work, isolated review, clean workspace, or when user mentions worktrees.
pr
Comprehensive PR/issue review - analyzes architecture, tests, identifies unrelated changes mixed in, drafts review comment or issue comment. Use when user asks to review a PR, check a PR, look at PR changes, or comment on an issue.
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…