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 Kevin-Liu-01/Agent-Machines --skill cross-modal-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Kevin-Liu-01/Agent-MachinesWrote 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/kevin-liu-01/agent-machines/cross-modal-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kevin-liu-01/agent-machines/cross-modal-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kevin-liu-01/agent-machines/cross-modal-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/kevin-liu-01/agent-machines/cross-modal-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kevin-liu-01/agent-machines/cross-modal-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00066 | $0.00899 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00033 | $0.00449 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00180 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00090 |
Grade A, and why
cross-modal-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.
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.
Cross-Modal Review — Second Opinion Quality Gate
Send work to a different AI model for independent review. The reviewer grades against the originating skill's Contract section — checking promises, not vibes.
Contract
This skill guarantees:
- Work product is reviewed by a different model before finalizing
- Review grades against the originating skill's Contract (what was promised)
- Agreement and disagreement reported transparently
- User always makes the final decision (user sovereignty)
- Never auto-applies reviewer suggestions
Phases
Phase 1: Capture Work Product
Identify what needs review:
- The brain page, code change, analysis, or decision
- The originating skill (which skill produced this output)
- The Contract section from that skill (what was promised)
Phase 2: Load the Contract
Read the originating skill's Contract section. This is the grading rubric.
Example: if the output came from gstack-review, load gstack-review/SKILL.md
and extract the Contract section.
If no originating skill (ad-hoc work), construct a minimal contract:
- What was the user's request?
- What did the agent promise to deliver?
- What quality bar was implied?
Phase 3: Spawn Review Model
Use Cursor's Task tool to spawn a subagent with a different model:
Task(
model: "fast" or a named alternative model,
prompt: "You are an independent reviewer. Grade this work against the Contract below.
CONTRACT:
{paste the Contract section}
WORK PRODUCT:
{paste the work to review}
For each promise in the Contract, answer: PASS or FAIL with specific evidence.
Then give an overall verdict: PASS / ISSUES FOUND.
List specific findings with evidence."
)
Phase 4: Synthesize
Present the review to Kevin:
Cross-Modal Review
==================
Reviewer: {model name}
Contract: {originating skill name}
Verdict: PASS | ISSUES FOUND
Contract compliance:
[PASS] {promise 1} — {evidence}
[FAIL] {promise 2} — {what's missing}
Findings:
1. {finding with evidence}
2. {finding with evidence}
Agreement with primary: {X}%
Recommendation: {accept / revise / redo}
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 · 128 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A bbd6f16b2575
cross-modal-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Kevin-Liu-01/Agent-Machines (29 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 899 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
dx-roaster
Brutally honest developer-experience audit for a GitHub repo. Scores 10 DX dimensions (time-to-first-success, README clarity, visual proof, install, quick-start, docs, examples, community, trust, marketing), writes a shareable roast in the requested tone (brutal/honest/kind), produces a prioritized action plan ranked…
mcp-review
Review MCP server specifications and updates for compliance, security, and quality. Use when evaluating server.json files, PRs adding/updating servers, or assessing MCP server changes. NOT for creating new entries (use add-mcp-server instead).
code-review
When the user wants a thorough code review of changes, a PR, a file, or a feature branch. Use when the user says "review this," "code review," "check my code," "what's wrong with this," "review my PR," "look over this," "critique this," "review before merge," or when submitting code for quality assessment. Performs…
holix-cron
Schedule recurring agent tasks via Holix built-in gateway cron (not crontab or custom scripts).
review-guidelines
Additional code review guidelines specific to this codebase. Auto-loaded by the review agent during PR reviews to enforce project conventions.
quick-review
Review a code diff or file for correctness bugs, security issues, and clear simplifications. One finding per line, severity-tagged. Use when user wants fast, focused code review.