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 agentmods add skills/jrobelia/inventree-plugin-ai-toolkit/code-reviewnpx skills add jrobelia/inventree-plugin-ai-toolkit --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jrobelia/inventree-plugin-ai-toolkitWrote 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/jrobelia/inventree-plugin-ai-toolkit/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jrobelia/inventree-plugin-ai-toolkit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jrobelia/inventree-plugin-ai-toolkit/code-review.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 | $0.00096 | $0.01536 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00768 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00307 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00154 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 5d 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.
This is a copy
88% identical to code-review — 58 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:
- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?
Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point
Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.
Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.
2. Identify the spec source
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
- Issue references in the commit messages (
#123,Closes #45, GitLab!67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow indocs/agents/issue-tracker.md. - A path the user passed as an argument.
- A PRD/spec file under
docs/,specs/, or.scratch/matching the branch name or feature. - If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
3. Identify the standards sources
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.
On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (Refactoring, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:
- The repo overrides. A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
- Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 90 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A 6a65cc61114f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jrobelia/inventree-plugin-ai-toolkit (1 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 1,536 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to code-review, differing in 58 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
dotnet-testing-advanced-tunit-advanced
TUnit 進階應用完整指南。當需要使用 TUnit 進行資料驅動測試、依賴注入或整合測試時使用。涵蓋 MethodDataSource、ClassDataSource、Matrix Tests、Properties 過濾。包含 Retry/Timeout 控制、WebApplicationFactory 整合、Testcontainers 多服務編排。 Make sure to use this skill whenever the user mentions TUnit advanced, MethodDataSource, ClassDataSource, Matrix Tests, TUnit dependency…
dotnet-testing-autodata-xunit-integration
AutoFixture 與 xUnit 整合完整指南。當需要使用 AutoData 或 InlineAutoData 簡化 xUnit 參數化測試資料準備時使用。涵蓋自訂 Customization 與測試資料屬性，提升測試可讀性與維護性。 Make sure to use this skill whenever the user mentions AutoData, InlineAutoData, MemberAutoData, AutoFixture xUnit integration, or parameterized test data attributes, even if they don't explicitly…
dotnet-testing-autofixture-nsubstitute-integration
AutoFixture 與 NSubstitute 整合指南 - 實現自動模擬 (Auto-Mocking)。當需要自動建立 Mock 物件、簡化複雜相依性注入測試時使用。涵蓋 AutoNSubstituteDataAttribute、Frozen 機制、Greedy 建構策略。包含 IMapper (AutoMapper/Mapster) 等特殊相依性的客製化處理。 Make sure to use this skill whenever the user mentions AutoFixture with NSubstitute, auto-mocking, AutoNSubstituteCustomization…
dotnet-testing-bogus-fake-data
使用 Bogus 產生擬真假資料的專門技能。當需要產生真實感的姓名、地址、電話、Email、公司資訊等測試資料時使用。涵蓋 Faker 類別、多語言支援、自訂規則、大量資料產生等。 Make sure to use this skill whenever the user mentions Bogus, Faker, fake data, realistic test data, generating names/addresses/emails, or seed data, even if they don't explicitly ask for fake data guidance. Keywords: bogus…
dotnet-testing-xunit-project-setup
MyProject/ ├── src/ # 主程式碼目錄 │ └── MyProject.Core/ │ ├── MyProject.Core.csproj │ ├── Calculator.cs │ ├── Services/ │ └── Models/ ├── tests/ # 測試程式碼目錄 │ └── MyProject.Core.Tests/ │ ├── MyProject.Core.Tests.csproj │ ├── CalculatorTests.cs │ ├── Services/ │ └── Models/ └── MyProject.sln.
dotnet-testing-advanced-aspire-testing
.NET Aspire Testing 整合測試框架完整指南。當需要測試 .NET Aspire 分散式應用程式、設定 AppHost 測試或從 Testcontainers 遷移至 Aspire 測試時使用。涵蓋 DistributedApplicationTestingBuilder、容器生命週期管理、多服務編排、Respawn 配置與時間可測試性設計。 Make sure to use this skill whenever the user mentions .NET Aspire, AppHost testing, DistributedApplicationTestingBuilder, cloud-native…