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 lalitnayyar/finally --skill gsd-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lalitnayyar/finallyWrote 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/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-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/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lalitnayyar/finally/gsd-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 | $0.00018 | $0.00741 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
gsd-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 13d 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<codex_skill_adapter>
A. Skill Invocation
- This skill is invoked by mentioning
$gsd-review. - Treat all user text after
$gsd-reviewas{{GSD_ARGS}}. - If no arguments are present, treat
{{GSD_ARGS}}as empty.
B. AskUserQuestion → request_user_input Mapping
GSD workflows use AskUserQuestion (Claude Code syntax). Translate to Codex request_user_input:
Parameter mapping:
header→headerquestion→question- Options formatted as
"Label" — description→{label: "Label", description: "description"} - Generate
idfrom header: lowercase, replace spaces with underscores
Batched calls:
AskUserQuestion([q1, q2])→ singlerequest_user_inputwith multiple entries inquestions[]
Multi-select workaround:
- Codex has no
multiSelect. Use sequential single-selects, or present a numbered freeform list asking the user to enter comma-separated numbers.
Execute mode fallback:
- When
request_user_inputis rejected (Execute mode), present a plain-text numbered list and pick a reasonable default.
C. Task() → spawn_agent Mapping
GSD workflows use Task(...) (Claude Code syntax). Translate to Codex collaboration tools:
Direct mapping:
Task(subagent_type="X", prompt="Y")→spawn_agent(agent_type="X", message="Y")Task(model="...")→ omit (Codex uses per-role config, not inline model selection)fork_context: falseby default — GSD agents load their own context via<files_to_read>blocks
Parallel fan-out:
- Spawn multiple agents → collect agent IDs →
wait(ids)for all to complete
Result parsing:
- Look for structured markers in agent output:
CHECKPOINT,PLAN COMPLETE,SUMMARY, etc. close_agent(id)after collecting results from each agent </codex_skill_adapter>
Flow: Detect CLIs → Build review prompt → Invoke each CLI → Collect responses → Write REVIEWS.md
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 74 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 0f66239dd935
gsd-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository lalitnayyar/finally (0 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 741 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 2026-10-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…