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 juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-osWrote 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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/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/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os/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 | $0.00024 | $0.01586 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00793 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00317 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00159 |
Grade A, and why
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 12d 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
91% identical to review-deep — 20 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 — 157 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<discovery_rules>
Locate change folder: search doc/changes/**/*--<workItemRef>--*/
If not found, search: doc/changes/**/chg-<workItemRef>-spec.md
Spec file: chg-<workItemRef>-spec.md; derive slug & change.type from frontmatter.
Plan file: chg-<workItemRef>-plan.md
Folder pattern: doc/changes/YYYY-MM/YYYY-MM-DD--<workItemRef>--<slug>/
Abort with clear error if spec OR plan missing.
</discovery_rules>
<branch_resolution>
changeBranch = <change.type>/<workItemRef>/<slug>
headRef: directives override, else try changeBranch, fallback: current HEAD.
baseBranch: directives override, else main, fallback: master.
Compute merge-base and gather symmetric diff baseBranch...headRef.
</branch_resolution>
<directive_parsing> Directives (case-insensitive):
- Base branch:
base=<branch>|base branch <branch>|compare vs <branch> - Head ref:
head=<ref>|head ref <ref>|branch <ref> - Suppress commit trigger:
no commit|commit=false - Dry run:
dry run|preview onlyUnrecognized tokens ignored. </directive_parsing>
<pre_flight>
- Validate workItemRef format (uppercase prefix + hyphen + digits).
- Resolve spec; extract change.type & slug.
- Resolve plan; parse phases & existing remediation.
- Load repository rules (AGENTS.md,
.ai/rules/**). - Resolve branches & compute diff metadata.
- If dryRun: prepare preview but do NOT write. </pre_flight>
<review_method> The reviewer agent applies its full review framework:
Spec/plan compliance (local mode):
- Scope compliance: changed files align with spec capabilities
- Plan alignment: all tasks done, acceptance criteria have evidence
- Plan task audit: OPEN_TASKS, DONE_BUT_UNCHECKED, CHECKED_BUT_MISSING
- Out-of-scope detection: changes to files not in plan
Code quality heuristics (both modes):
- Full built-in heuristic framework: correctness, security, performance, reliability, API compat, testing gaps, documentation, dependencies
- Repository-local rules from
.ai/agent/code-review-instructions.mdand.ai/rules/
Ticket context (when available):
- Acceptance criteria verification against implementation
- Linked issue traversal for additional constraints and decisions
The reviewer loads all available context — spec, plan, ticket, repo rules, heuristics — and applies them holistically. Do not duplicate heuristic definitions here; they live in the reviewer agent prompt. </review_method>
<findings_format>
[severity: major|minor|nit] <file>[:line] — <description>; fix: <action>
</findings_format>
<remediation_phase> If findings exist, append new phase to plan:
### Phase X: Code Review Remediation
- Goal: Address code review findings.
- Tasks:
- [ ] <precise fix per finding>
- Acceptance criteria:
- Must: All fixes implemented and validated.
- Must: Updated tests pass.
- Files and modules: <paths>
- Completion signal: docs(plan): remediate review findings for <workItemRef>
Rules:
- X = max existing phase + 1.
- Do NOT modify earlier phases.
- Append revision log entry. </remediation_phase>
<commit_behavior>
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 157 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 92b5a2aa0818
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository juliusz-cwiakalski/agentic-delivery-os (38 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,586 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to review-deep, differing in 20 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Review before merge. Stage-1 spec-compliance gate, then risk-selected Stage-2 review axes from the canonical set. analyst always runs, callers can pin extra always-on axes, and explicit deep review runs the full 16-axis set. Run after /test. Do NOT invoke code-qualities-assessment, doc-accuracy, golden-principles, or…
code-qualities-assessment
Assess code maintainability through 5 foundational qualities (cohesion, coupling, encapsulation, testability, non-redundancy) with quantifiable scoring rubrics. Works at method/class/module levels across multiple languages. Produces markdown reports with remediation guidance. Use when you ask to "assess…
adr-review
Multi-agent debate orchestration for Architecture Decision Records. Automatically triggers on ADR create/edit/delete. Coordinates architect, critic, independent-thinker, security, analyst, and high-level-advisor agents in structured debate rounds until consensus. Use when you say "review this ADR", when an ADR is…
style-enforcement
Validate code against style rules from .editorconfig, StyleCop.json, and Directory.Build.props. Use when you say "check style compliance", "validate editorconfig rules", "run style enforcement", "check naming conventions", or "validate line endings". Detects line ending violations, naming convention issues…
analysis-provenance
Identify code ownership before modifying validators or linters. Checks file headers for provenance indicators, reviews documentation, and determines provenance as UPSTREAM, LOCAL, VENDOR, or UNKNOWN. Prevents accidental modification of upstream tools.
analyze
Systematic multi-step codebase analysis producing prioritized findings with file-line evidence. Covers architecture reviews, security assessments, and code quality evaluations through guided exploration, investigation planning, and synthesis. Use when you say "analyze this codebase", "run security assessment"…