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 klimentij/klimkit --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/klimentij/klimkitWrote 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/klimentij/klimkit/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/klimentij/klimkit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/klimentij/klimkit/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/klimentij/klimkit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/klimentij/klimkit/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 | $0.00095 | $0.01052 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00421 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00210 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00105 |
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 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to review — 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:
- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?
Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point
Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. Don't be opinionated; pass it through. If they didn't specify one, ask: "Review against what — a branch, a commit, or main?" Don't proceed until you have it.
Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.
2. Identify the spec source
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
- Issue references in the commit messages (
#123,Closes #45, GitLab!67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow indocs/agents/issue-tracker.md. - A path the user passed as an argument.
- A PRD/spec file under
docs/,specs/, or.scratch/matching the branch name or feature. - If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
3. Identify the standards sources
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written. Common locations:
CLAUDE.md,AGENTS.mdCONTRIBUTING.mdCONTEXT.md,CONTEXT-MAP.md, per-contextCONTEXT.mdfilesdocs/adr/(architectural decisions are standards).editorconfig,eslint.config.*,biome.json,prettier.config.*,tsconfig.json(machine-enforced standards — note them but don't re-check what tooling already checks)- Any
STYLE.md,STANDARDS.md,STYLEGUIDE.md, or similar at the repo root or underdocs/
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 · 79 lines · 95 tokens per session scan A 5700f30d3f06
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository klimentij/klimkit (7 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 1,052 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
code-review
You are a senior code reviewer. You receive diffs via stdin.
agent-debug-ci
Investigate failed scheduled or nightly GitHub Actions runs on the default branch, determine whether the failure is reproducible and repository-owned, implement the smallest evidence-backed fix, validate it, and open a pull request. Use when a failed nightly CI event starts an agent, or when the standard CI or…
audit-ci
Run and analyze Elements cold CI performance profiles and propose evidence-backed build, test, lint, and dependency-graph improvements. Use whenever asked to profile or benchmark pnpm run ci, rerun ci:profile, create a CI performance audit, compare CI timings, find bottlenecks or the completion path, investigate a CI…
review
Adversarial review of an increment before it ships, by a fresh context or another model family; every finding cites path:line and is re-verified. Use for "review", "qa", "critique this".
tech-debt-ci-review
Codex adapter for deep technical-debt and CI-stability audits. Use when asked to find test theater, flaky tests, missing or mis-scoped tests, brittle CI/toolchain behavior, structural debt blocking green PRs, or a remediation order for opencode-swarm.