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 jsuvic/agent-profile --skill final-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jsuvic/agent-profileWrote 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/jsuvic/agent-profile/final-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jsuvic/agent-profile/final-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jsuvic/agent-profile/final-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 | $0.00027 | $0.00227 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00113 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00045 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00023 |
Grade A, and why
final-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 6d 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.
What it actually says
Final Review
Instructions
- Compare the implementation against the relevant spec.
- Confirm acceptance criteria are met or list the unmet criteria.
- Confirm tests and golden tests were run when applicable.
- Check generated outputs for deterministic formatting and intentional fixture changes.
- Check that no literal secrets, production access, unsafe auto-approval, source upload, or automatic dependency installation were introduced.
- Report remaining risks, TODOs, and documentation gaps. When change-risk review applies, validate the closed snapshot-bound
ChangeRiskOrchestrationStateV1handoff fromsubagent-driven-change; accept a terminal result only when its snapshot matches the final snapshot modulodocs/review-learning/, and do not run another review or interpret prose state.
Output
Return a concise final review with spec compliance, tests run, contract impact, security impact, and remaining risks.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 22 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 29194da97e82
final-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jsuvic/agent-profile (3 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 227 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
code-review
Perform comprehensive code reviews covering bugs, style, performance, security, and best practices. Use this skill when the user mentions: review my code, check this code, code review, find bugs, improve code, refactor suggestions, security audit, performance optimization, code quality, static analysis.
survey
After building a feature (or evaluating a plan), verify it matches what was planned, respects the project's declared architecture and standards, and is production-ready. Reports issues clearly and routes broken behavior to dredge or contested judgment calls to watershed.
watershed
Get a wider, multi-angle critique of code, a plan, or an idea through five distinct critical perspectives, followed by a sixth consolidation pass. Use when a decision is contested, high-stakes, or one careful survey is not enough.
design-parity-review
Prove a Compose UI pull request matches its intended design by diffing the rendered code (candidate) against a Figma / Stitch / Claude Design reference and posting a parity verdict. Use when asked to check a PR against a design, wire up a design-parity bot, set up the committed reference cache so runs make zero Figma…
compose-preview-review
Review pull requests that change Compose UI by rendering @Preview composables on base and head and diffing them. Use when reviewing a UI PR locally or from a CI agent session (@claude mention), authoring an agent-opened PR that touches UI, or triaging flaky or unstable previews (time/random/animation). Pairs with the…
speckit.validate
Implementation Validator - Validate implementation vs overall spec.