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-review/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-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/legann/repovine/repovine-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legann/repovine/repovine-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/legann/repovine/repovine-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/legann/repovine/repovine-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 | $0.00024 | $0.02360 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00944 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00472 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00236 |
Grade A, and why
repovine-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 192 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review and Audit
Use this skill when the user asks for a review, merge-readiness check, implementation validation, architecture audit, refactoring triage, or security-sensitive boundary audit. This is a read-only workflow: do not edit files, update snapshots, write annotations, or change the workspace.
Use the managed repovine-code-reviewer agent for read-only implementation/diff reviews. Use the managed repovine-architecture-auditor agent for architecture smells, boundaries, frontend state/effect problems, event-driven boundaries, and security-sensitive risks. The main agent uses this skill to gather the packet, choose the repovine checks, delegate when useful, and format the verdict.
Inputs to gather
- Assignment/task, acceptance criteria, and contracts.
- Diff base, changed files, and touched graph nodes.
- Implementation result if available:
AgentRunResult, tests run, compliance flags, contextPack/contextSessionId. - Any known baseline failures, flaky tests, unavailable env/resources, or CI evidence.
If the diff base or task is missing and cannot be inferred safely, ask a short clarification before reviewing.
Choose the Review Path
| User asks for | Use |
|---|---|
| Code review, diff review, merge readiness, acceptance validation | repovine-code-reviewer or local read-only review |
| Architecture smells, duplication, low cohesion, god modules | repovine-architecture-auditor with analyze_architecture |
| Package/domain boundaries or service wrappers | analyze_architecture + analyze_dependencies |
| Frontend state, effects, routes, design-system leakage, client policy | analyze_architecture with frontend categories and includeComponentEntrypoints: true when needed |
| Event-driven or runtime/resource boundaries | trace_flow + analyze_architecture |
| Security-sensitive boundaries | analyze_architecture security categories + get_config_surface |
| Missing annotation memory or unclear ownership | get_annotation_status + analyze_architecture({ "categories": ["unclear-architecture", "annotation-risk"] }) |
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 · 192 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 40ef36fde535
repovine-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository legann/repovine (0 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 2,360 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…