Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to legann/repovine. 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/legann/repovine/main/.agents/skills/repovine-annotations/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/legann/repovineWrote 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/legann/repovine/repovine-annotations)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/legann/repovine/repovine-annotations"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legann/repovine/repovine-annotations/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/legann/repovine/repovine-annotations"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legann/repovine/repovine-annotations.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 | $0.00019 | $0.04114 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01646 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00823 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00411 |
Grade A, and why
repovine-annotations 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 197 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
repovine-annotations
Maintain the annotation layer through targeted updates, merge/conflict repair, or reviewed batch onboarding.
Skill inputs
The user may ask for:
- default: targeted annotation maintenance for changed/stale nodes
- init or onboard: coverage + estimate + prompt for a first batch
- continue: next batch in the last scope
- domain : scope to one domain
- limit : override the default batch size
Targeted annotation flow
Use this path after concrete code changes, stale annotation signals, or annotation-file conflicts.
- Refresh first if files changed since the syntax index was built:
refresh_context({})
- Check annotation health and merge state:
get_annotation_merge_status({})
validate_annotations({})
get_annotation_status({ "view": "coverage" })
get_annotation_status({ "view": "queue", "limit": 10 })
If repovine.annots.json contains conflict markers, call merge_annotations({}) and then validate_annotations({}) before writing notes.
Risk-scope candidate advisory: validate_annotations may report plain/local risks that look like scope:"consumer" or scope:"boundary" candidates, and get_annotation_status({ "view": "risk-scope-candidates" }) pages the review list. A candidate is not proof; inspect the node/source before rewriting. If accepted, rewrite only through write_annotation, preserving the risk text and adding scope. If rejected, leave it local; v1 has no suppression state.
After git merge/rebase: resolve code conflicts first, then merge_annotations({}), git add repovine.annots.json, refresh_context({}), and validate_annotations({}). If merge-review markers remain, compare the ours/theirs assumptions and rewrite the final field via write_annotation.
view: "queue" is one backlog (modules, templates, services, infra, domain roll-ups), not separate queues. Drain order (engine-sorted): (1) content-stale (staleKind: "content"), (2) then propagation-stale (staleKind: "propagation"), (3) then unannotated; within each tier modules and templates before runtime resources, infra and domain roll-ups, and only then bottom-up by dependency depth. Take the top page of view: "queue" — do not run a separate propagation-first pass via derived-review unless the orchestrator explicitly requests propagation-only review. Propagation items: refreshImportBaseline: true unless upstream contract changed. Content-stale: full rewrite. Finish when needsWork: 0. Offsets shift as notes are written.
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 · 197 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A f0107d6515a3
repovine-annotations is a skill published in the GitHub repository legann/repovine (0 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 4,114 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
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"…
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…
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…