Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add joymin5655/Agent/plugin install agent-harnessWrote 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/joymin5655/agent/council-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/joymin5655/agent/council-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joymin5655/agent/council-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/joymin5655/agent/council-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/joymin5655/agent/council-review.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 | $0.00143 | $0.03217 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00072 | $0.01608 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00643 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00322 |
Grade A, and why
council-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 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 — 224 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/council-review
Goal
One diff, several independent reviewers, one synthesized report. Different models fail differently — a finding two vendors reach independently outranks a finding one vendor reaches confidently, and a synthesizer that answers to the actual code (not to the reviewers) drops what was hallucinated.
Lanes
| Lane | Vendor | Lens | Dispatch | Participates in verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
code-reviewer agent |
anthropic | its own agent charter | Agent tool (model pin: sonnet, unchanged) | yes |
second-opinion-review |
openai (codex) | implementation correctness | core/infra/call-worker.sh |
yes |
third-opinion-review |
google (gemini, via antigravity) | architecture & consistency | core/infra/call-worker.sh |
yes (when lane enabled) |
advisor-third (--with-grok) |
xai (grok) | unscoped (free perspective) | core/infra/call-worker.sh |
no — advisory only |
advisor-free (--with-free) |
openrouter (model vendor pinned in adapters/openrouter/*.template — see core/infra/backends.json's honesty comment) |
unscoped (free perspective) | core/infra/call-worker.sh |
no — advisory only |
Lane SSOT is core/infra/backends.json. A disabled lane (e.g. one whose CLI
or preflight is missing) refuses loudly at dispatch; report it as absent —
never substitute another vendor for it (a fallback that shares a seated
vendor would fake the independence signal).
The grok lane runs on the free tier by design (decided 2026-08-19): when its
quota is exhausted mid-review the lane surfaces status: rate-limited and the
council fails open — the review proceeds without the advisory, the lane
status line says "rate-limited, retry later", and no upgrade prompt is put to
the user. The openrouter free lane carries the same fail-open contract on its
own 429s (adapters/openrouter/README.md), but its cost is retention, not
quota — see step 2.
Steps
0.5. Mark council-active before dispatching the Claude lane
Before this skill's own code-reviewer Agent dispatch (step 3), set the
council-active flag through the gate's own CLI — never write a flag file
directly. The escape hatch now lives OUTSIDE this repo (keyed to the project
root) and its content must be the CURRENT diff's hash, which only the CLI
can produce:
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 · 224 lines · 143 tokens per session scan A 4d71ff335f0e
council-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository joymin5655/Agent (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 143 tokens to every session and 3,217 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
Run a structured code review (Codex default, Claude optional) as a closeout check on a local or PR branch before commit or ship.
github
GitHub operations expert for PRs, issues, code review, Actions, and gh CLI.
requesting-code-review
Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.
continual-learning
Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt…
meta-codereview-current-diff
Read the current uncommitted diff, run three independent reviewers (safety + tests-coverage + style) in parallel, then arbitrate a single BLOCK / BLOCKWITHOVERRIDE / PASSWITHNOTES verdict. Use before commit when you want a multi-perspective second-opinion instead of a single-reviewer agent loop.
prs-awaiting-maintainer
List open pull requests where the ball is in the maintainer's court: CI is green and the PR is ready for a maintainer to review, re-review, or merge. Use when the user wants to see PRs awaiting maintainer action.