Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to kaistenberg/MCP-Linkedin. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kaistenberg/MCP-Linkedin/main/.agents/skills/triage-reviews/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kaistenberg/MCP-LinkedinWrote 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/kaistenberg/mcp-linkedin/triage-reviews)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kaistenberg/mcp-linkedin/triage-reviews"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaistenberg/mcp-linkedin/triage-reviews/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/kaistenberg/mcp-linkedin/triage-reviews"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaistenberg/mcp-linkedin/triage-reviews.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 | $0.01442 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00721 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00288 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00144 |
Grade A, and why
triage-reviews 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 10d 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
100% identical to triage-reviews — 0 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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Triage PR Review Comments
Fetch all review comments on the current PR, verify each finding against real code, fix valid issues, and push.
Phase 1: Gather Comments
-
Determine the PR number:
- Use
$ARGUMENTSif provided - Otherwise:
gh pr view --json number --jq .number
- Use
-
Fetch ALL comments (reviewers post in multiple places):
gh api --paginate repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/reviews gh api --paginate repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments gh api --paginate repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{pr}/comments -
Extract unique findings — deduplicate across Copilot, Greptile, and human reviewers. Group by file and line.
Phase 2: Verify Each Finding
For EVERY finding, verify against real code before accepting or rejecting:
- Read the actual code at the referenced file:line
- Check if the issue still exists — it may already be fixed in a later commit
- Verify correctness using:
- Code analysis (read surrounding context, trace call paths)
- Run
btca resourcesto see what's available, thenbtca ask -r <resource> -q "..."for library/framework questions - Web search for API behavior, language semantics, or CVEs
- Classify each finding:
- Valid — real bug, real gap, or real improvement needed
- False positive — reviewer misread the code, outdated reference, or style preference
Phase 3: Fix & Ship
- Fix all Valid findings
- Run the project's lint/test commands (check CLAUDE.md for exact commands)
- If lint/tests fail, fix the failures before committing
- If a failure cannot be fixed automatically, skip that fix and report it as Valid (unfixed) in the Phase 4 table
git addonly changed files,git commitwith message:fix: Address PR review feedback - <one-line summary per fix>- Push:
gt submit(orgit pushif not using Graphite)
Phase 3.5: Reply on each thread, then resolve it
Pushing the fix isn't enough. Each inline review comment lives in its own thread that GitHub keeps showing as "Unresolved" until someone explicitly resolves it. The skill must close that loop for every Valid and False-positive finding so the PR view actually reflects what was triaged.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 128 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 82583f75645b
triage-reviews is a skill published in the GitHub repository kaistenberg/MCP-Linkedin (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,442 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to triage-reviews, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…