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 agentmods add skills/leifericf/agentic-sdk/review-risksnpx skills add leifericf/agentic-sdk --skill review-risksgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/leifericf/agentic-sdkWrote 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/leifericf/agentic-sdk/review-risks)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/leifericf/agentic-sdk/review-risks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/leifericf/agentic-sdk/review-risks.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00012 | $0.00351 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00176 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00070 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
review-risks 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 3d 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.
What it actually says
review-risks
Surface ambiguity, contradictions, risky assumptions, and missing acceptance criteria. Translate risks into testable questions and mitigations.
Procedure
- Read
project-meta.md,problem-description.md,product-requirements.md, andopen-questions.md. If a prerequisite is missing, returnblocked: <which artifact>. - Surface any
[Blocking]items affectingrisk-assumption-review.mdand resolve them first. - Pull likely risks and assumptions from the artifacts rather than ask the user to enumerate them. Look for missing requirements, contradictions, scope-creep signals, over-engineering traps, dangerous assumptions, and organizational risks.
- Confirm with targeted questions, at most three per turn; prefer binary and pick-one over open-ended. Continue until uncertainty is acceptably low.
- Write
~/.agentic-sdk/<project>/artifacts/planning/risk-assumption-review.mdwith: Metadata, Confirmed Truths, Key Risks (category, likelihood, impact, mitigation, owner), Dangerous Assumptions, Scope Creep Watchlist, Over-Engineering Traps, Recommended Simplifications. Record new open questions inopen-questions.md.
Boundaries
Owns risk and assumption surfacing across the planning artifacts. define-requirements owns the requirements; design-technical owns technical tradeoffs. Reached by plan-system.
Return
One line: the artifact written and a terse status, or blocked: <reason>.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 40 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A fc9c210d3bca
review-risks is a skill published in the GitHub repository leifericf/agentic-sdk (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 351 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…