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 jszmajda/lid --skill review-depthgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jszmajda/lidWrote 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/jszmajda/lid/review-depth)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jszmajda/lid/review-depth"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jszmajda/lid/review-depth/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/jszmajda/lid/review-depth"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jszmajda/lid/review-depth.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 | $0.00093 | $0.01382 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00553 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00276 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00138 |
Grade A, and why
review-depth 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 59 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Depth (experiment)
An experimental overlay on the linked-intent-dev workflow: the user declares the design phases they personally review, and whether they review the tests before code; deeper phases still run in full, but their outputs consolidate into one review instead of stopping per phase. Per-phase stops remain LID's default — this skill changes nothing unless the user has declared a review depth. An active declaration is the user's express authorization to suspend the per-phase stop default (LID-CORE-005) below the declared depth.
Recognizing the declaration
The declaration is the user's own prose — in their instruction file or stated in-session. LID writes no configuration for it. Recommended shape (offer it to users who want a standing declaration):
Review depth: I review through LLD; below that, consolidate to one review. I don't need to see the tests before code. Judgment areas: naming and API shapes; anything touching auth.
The declaration has two parts. Depth tracks the design phases — through HLD, through LLD, through EARS: phases at and above X stop per-phase as usual; the design phases below consolidate. The tests gate is whether the user reviews the failing tests before you write code. Tests always come first, failing, before any code; the gate decides only whether the user sees them then. It is on unless the user says otherwise. With it on, the consolidated review comes at the tests gate, before code. With it off, write the failing tests, go on to code without stopping, and present the consolidated review after code, with the core workflow's coherence verification. Through EARS with the gate on is the ordinary per-phase workflow. If the user turns the gate off mid-change, continue from where you are. Judgment areas name the fork kinds the user wants routed to them immediately (see below). Judgment areas start from the kinds of judgment the core linked-intent-dev skill lists under Judgment still reaches the user: every kind the user has not let go is a judgment area, with or without a declaration. Any kind that skill's references/capability-flags.md flags for your model and reasoning effort is a judgment area too, even if the user let it go, unless they said otherwise knowing the flag. No declaration means no change: full per-phase stops.
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 · 59 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A c9eb8257b256
review-depth is a skill published in the GitHub repository jszmajda/lid (112 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 1,382 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-10-12.
Other skills, from other repositories
add
Create a new Clawness rule from a natural language description. Describe what you want enforced and this will generate the YAML rule file with proper tags, triggers, and examples.
review
Run an adversarial code review on staged changes or a specific file. Spawns the code-critic agent to find bugs, performance issues, and missed edge cases. Use before merging PRs or committing.
triage-aging-prs
Drive an aging pull-request backlog to zero. Inventories every open PR, finds the STRUCTURAL blockers first (a required check that can never run, a reviewer that never fires, chronically red CI), triages every unresolved review thread in parallel and VERIFIES each finding against the code before fixing it, then merges…
review-comments
Systematically pull, categorize, and address all PR review comments — code change requests, questions, and suggestions. This skill fetches comments via gh api, groups them by file, implements fixes, handles disagreements diplomatically, and pushes a single commit. You should not try to handle PR review feedback…
scan-reward-hacking
Scan TypeScript code for reward hacking patterns — shortcuts that make linters pass without actually fixing type safety. This skill has a comprehensive checklist of 8 forbidden patterns with severity tuning (libraries vs apps) that you cannot reliably check on your own. ALWAYS consult this skill when the user says…
validate-plan
Validate that implementation plans were correctly executed. ALWAYS use when the user says 'validate the plan', 'check if the plan was implemented correctly', 'verify the implementation', or after completing /implement-plan to confirm all phases were properly executed and success criteria met.