Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to khill1269/servalsheets. 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/khill1269/servalsheets/main/.claude/skills/review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/khill1269/servalsheetsWrote 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/khill1269/servalsheets/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/khill1269/servalsheets/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khill1269/servalsheets/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/khill1269/servalsheets/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khill1269/servalsheets/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 | $0.00035 | $0.00181 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00072 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00036 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00018 |
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 2mo 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
Use the code-review-orchestrator agent to review the current changes.
The reviewer will check in a single pass:
- TypeScript strict mode compliance
- MCP 2025-11-25 protocol compliance (response format, error codes, tool registration)
- Google API best practices (field masks, retry, circuit breaker, batching)
- Security (OAuth handling, input validation, no credential exposure)
- Test coverage (are new code paths covered?)
- ServalSheets patterns (BaseHandler vs standalone, response format, safety rails)
Output: pass/fail per category with specific file:line references for any issues.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 18 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 3fb653a12945
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository khill1269/servalsheets (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 181 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
trace-mcp-refactoring
Safe refactoring workflow using trace-mcp — assess risk, find candidates, check impact, and rename symbols across all files without missing import sites or cross-file references.
zen-review
Expert code reviewer. Analyze PR changes for correctness, security, performance, and quality. Returns findings as JSON. CRITICAL: this skill is costly, don't use it unless user explicitly requested to use it.
git-workflow
Follow this team's Git conventions for branching, commit messages, and pull requests.
reviewing-update-sets
Reviewing, analyzing, and comparing ServiceNow update sets before promotion, singly or in batches. Shows changes, risks, dependencies, and conflicts. Use when the user mentions update sets, customizations, promotion, code review, change tracking, pre-deployment review, sysupdatexml, customer updates, 'what changed in…
m1nd-first
Use when investigating a repository, searching for implementation, reviewing changes, working from specs/docs, or preparing a risky code change in an environment where m1nd is available. This doctrine makes m1nd the first investigative layer before grep, glob, or manual file reads, except when the task is pure…
review-thread
Record review verdicts and run the StateNote review thread on an agent-operation instance — every ReviewRequest verdict is one atomic batch-direct-write that advances status and co-writes a reviewnote explaining why, and findings are corrected by appending notes rather than editing them.