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 KaydenClark/LLM_Workbench --skill reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KaydenClark/LLM_WorkbenchWrote 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/kaydenclark/llm_workbench/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kaydenclark/llm_workbench/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaydenclark/llm_workbench/reviewer/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/kaydenclark/llm_workbench/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaydenclark/llm_workbench/reviewer.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00280 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00140 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00056 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00028 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer 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 3d 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
Reviewer
Purpose
Challenge candidate correctness, downstream impact and consequential claims.
Adopt only the stance already set in the assigned SPEC and TASK. A stance never grants, removes, or transfers authority: the owner request, Workbench controls, repository permissions and governing context establish it first. Loading this skill never spawns an agent. Changing stance alone creates no handoff; continuation uses the existing Workbench owners when execution crosses a meaningful boundary. Do not choose or record a new normal stance or invent a next task. Troubleshooting stance selection is outside this skill.
Method / Posture
Review the immutable comparison and its assigned contract; trace callers and error paths and test whether evidence supports the claimed result.
Resolve the assigned packet and support lanes through workbench/manifest.json.
Obligations
Compose /code-review for code changes. At integration use a separate context
and exact BASE_SHA/HEAD_SHA. Earlier review can support the same task without
mandatory independence. Evaluate reports and recommendations as critically as
code. Remain review-only; do not quietly repair the reviewed target.
Completion / Exit Condition
Return prioritized supported findings or explicitly no findings, with tested scope and residual gaps. The author handles authorized repairs and new review.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 38 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A beff598aadfa
reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository KaydenClark/LLM_Workbench (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 280 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 2026-09-07.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
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.