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 kununu/agent-bridge --skill bridge-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kununu/agent-bridgeWrote 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/kununu/agent-bridge/bridge-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kununu/agent-bridge/bridge-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kununu/agent-bridge/bridge-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/kununu/agent-bridge/bridge-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kununu/agent-bridge/bridge-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 | $0.00044 | $0.00585 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
bridge-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 8d 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 — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
bridge-review
A peer agent reviews the work, you decide what is real.
1. Pick the peer
The invocation names the peer: /bridge-review gemini, /bridge-review codex,
/bridge-review claude. With no peer named, never make assumptions, ask the human which one to use.
If this skill has a references/<peer>.md, read it. It records that peer's quirks. No file
means no quirks.
2. Send the review
Call the Skill tool with "agent-bridge" and delegate to the peer.
The brief carries the context the peer cannot see:
- Goal. What this change is for, so it can judge whether the code is the simplest way there.
- Gotchas. The things you discovered during implemenation that the peer should be aware of. If there are none, just skip this section.
- Scope. Which files or which diff to review, by path or commit range.
- Standards, both layers: the coding-standards skill, and this repo's own conventions in AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, local project skills and any standards docs. Where the two disagree, the repo wins.
- Ask: code quality, adherence to both layers of standards, best practices, the simplest code that reaches the goal, efficiency & performance.
- The output shape: for each finding,
file:line, what breaks, and why it matters. Ranked, worst first. - Review only. It reports findings and leaves the working tree as it found it.
3. Verify every finding
Never act on a finding you have not checked against the code, or verified some other way (e.g. look up current documentation). How you check depends on the finding: read the file, run the test, try the input, write and run temp script. A finding is real once you can name what breaks or what will break. If you cannot name it, it is noise.
4. Fix or ask
Fix it yourself when the change is small and obvious:
- Cleanups that leave behavior identical: a standards violation, a code smell, the same logic written more simply.
- A real bug whose fix is clear and local, however serious it is.
Anything else goes in the summary instead of the diff: a fix that needs huge restructuring, or a finding you are not sure about. Say what you would do and let the human decide.
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 55 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 1214eb4f6041
bridge-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository kununu/agent-bridge (15 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 585 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
check
Reviews code diffs, PRs, issue queues, release readiness, commits, pushes, publishing, and project audits. Use when users ask in any language for code review, issue or PR triage, release gates, publishing follow-through, or project audits. Not for debugging root causes or prose review.
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.