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 jpicklyk/task-orchestrator --skill review-proposalsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jpicklyk/task-orchestratorWrote 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/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/review-proposals)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/review-proposals"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/review-proposals/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/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/review-proposals"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jpicklyk/task-orchestrator/review-proposals.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 | $0.00129 | $0.04583 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00052 | $0.01833 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00917 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00458 |
Grade A, and why
review-proposals 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 2d 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 — 244 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Proposals
Triages improvement-proposal MCP items created by /session-retrospective when a cross-session trend graduates. Presents pending proposals, collects a per-proposal decision, and carries out the disposition, including applying project-scoped config changes and filing or linking GitHub issues for global changes.
Calls are 4.0 tool calls; shapes live in ../_generated/call-shapes.md. Every answer is the response envelope (ok, data or error). A write is {ops: [...]} of flat elements (one per to-call block here). Results come back as data.results[i] in request order with data.summary {ok, failed}; read ops of an ops tool (config get, validate, effective) answer there too. These calls are non-atomic: if any element fails, even in a one-element call, the answer is ok: false with top-level error.code: partial_failure (no detail, no fix) beside the full data, and the cause is that element's data.results[i].error (code, message, detail, fix). Any other top-level error.code is a call-level rejection (envelope, unknown field, access).
Shared GitHub conventions (issue template, scrub rule, gh guard, dedup procedure) are not duplicated here: see <skill-base-dir>/../session-retrospective/references/github-feedback.md for the C2/C4/C5 contract referenced in Step 5.
Step 0 - Parse Arguments and Read Config
Parse $ARGUMENTS:
- A UUID: single-proposal mode. Skip Step 1 and go to Step 2 for that item.
--scope globalor--scope project: run only that scope's discovery query. Otherwise run both.
Read the config file directly (a file read, not an MCP call): the path on the SessionStart context's Config: line when there is one, otherwise the workspace .taskorchestrator/config.yaml. In personal scope that path is the user-level file. Below, "the config file" is whichever you read here. Read:
project.rootId/project.name: enables the project-scoped discovery query and the per-root push in Step 5. In personal scope the root is the anchor-only personal root: skip the project-scoped discovery query (proposals live in the global container), but a project-scoped acceptance still edits and pushes the user-level file with rootId = the personal root. Without a rootId, project-scoped discovery and acceptance are unavailable; proceed global-only.extensions.claude-code.retrospective.github_feedback.enabled: defaultfalsewhen the block or key is absent.extensions.claude-code.retrospective.github_feedback.repo: defaultjpicklyk/task-orchestrator.
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.
- 2d ago Changed · -136 lines 7ceb8128e5fb
- 23d ago Changed · +2 lines a64237a2d596
- 29d ago Changed · +1 lines 80161f584012
- 1mo ago First seen · 377 lines · 129 tokens per session scan A 4f2e0063ef7a
review-proposals is a skill published in the GitHub repository jpicklyk/task-orchestrator (209 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 129 tokens to every session and 4,583 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
branch-surgery-pr-split
Split oversized or mixed-concern branches into smaller, reviewable PR stacks with safety refs, topology selection, parity audits, and merge sequencing. Use when a PR or branch is too large, difficult to review, mixed across concerns, conflict-prone, or needs to be decomposed without losing net changes.
do-it
Turn the current discussion into a task step and implement it — adds step to task file, updates spec if needed, then implements with review-fix loop.
plan-tasks
Read an existing spec and propose a task breakdown — assesses separable work streams, proposes split, creates task files linked to the spec.
draft-issue
Draft a GitHub issue based on a discussion or requirements in the current conversation.
finish-task
Deprecated alias for close-task.
run-task
Run pending steps, then aftertask finalization; does not close the task.