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 KalarisLabs/Skill-Doctor --skill review-botsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KalarisLabs/Skill-DoctorWrote 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/kalarislabs/skill-doctor/review-bots)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kalarislabs/skill-doctor/review-bots"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kalarislabs/skill-doctor/review-bots/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/kalarislabs/skill-doctor/review-bots"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kalarislabs/skill-doctor/review-bots.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00190 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00076 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00038 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00019 |
Grade A, and why
review-bots 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 1mo 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
Review bots
- CodeRabbit — summaries + line comments
- Greptile — security-oriented (caught a live Composio credential and fail-on bugs before). Security findings are blocking until disproven.
- Intelligence AI — extra pass. Same blocking vs nit rule.
Not CI. Green bot ≠ merge. Red CI ≠ override with a bot emoji.
Fix or refute security/correctness/invariant breaks with a test. Style nits that contradict rustfmt/clippy: clippy wins. Secrets: rotate at vendor, purge git, add gitleaks — do not only delete the line. Do not add a fourth bot. Do not commit bot tokens.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 15 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A b761c1b1049b
review-bots is a skill published in the GitHub repository KalarisLabs/Skill-Doctor (13 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 190 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-11.
Other skills, from other repositories
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
review
Diff-scoped correctness review that reads the codebase around the change — callers, contracts, and invariants — and returns line-anchored findings ranked by severity with confidence, then a merge-risk verdict. Use for reviewing a PR, diff, or named change set. Not for style review, approvals-as-rubber-stamp, or…
architecture-audit
Systematic architecture audit and refactoring methodology for Rust + TypeScript codebases. Use when performing refactoring, cleanup, unification, code review, dead code removal, module reorganization, or tech debt elimination. Ensures no naming confusion, semantic overloading, hidden defaults, duplicate logic, or…
architectural_review
Review Rust code for advanced architectural patterns — capability mixins, typed commands, concurrency model choice, smart pointer/interior mutability selection, error-handling architecture, and memory layout. Use when the user asks to review system architecture, suggest broad design improvements, or evaluate trait…
hexagonal_review
Review a Rust codebase for hexagonal architecture compliance — dependency direction, port shape, adapter grouping, error boundaries, feature-flag placement, and testability. Use when the user asks to review architecture, audit layering, check ports-and-adapters discipline, or evaluate whether a Rust project's…
writing-rust
Idiomatic Rust development. Use when writing Rust code, Cargo crates/workspaces, Rust tests, or rustfmt/clippy/cargo workflows. Emphasizes ownership, Result errors, small APIs, stdlib-first dependencies, fast cargo feedback, and behavior tests. NOT for Go, Python, TypeScript, shell scripts, or infra-only work.