Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to lensapp/lens-sandbox. 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/lensapp/lens-sandbox/main/.claude/skills/review-comments/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lensapp/lens-sandboxWrote 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/lensapp/lens-sandbox/review-comments)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lensapp/lens-sandbox/review-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lensapp/lens-sandbox/review-comments/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/lensapp/lens-sandbox/review-comments"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lensapp/lens-sandbox/review-comments.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Tool Misuse · line 327 Tool parameters are crafted to achieve unintended or unsafe behavior. Parameter abuse can bypass intended safety checks (e.g. shell=True, --force, dangerous glob patterns).Fix: Validate all tool parameters against an allowlist. Reject dangerous parameter values (shell=True, --force, -rf /) and use safe defaults.
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 | $0.00112 | $0.02899 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00045 | $0.01160 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00580 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00290 |
Grade A, and why
review-comments 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 1mo 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 — 330 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Comments
You help the user work through pull request review comments efficiently. Your job is to fetch all comments, understand them in the context of the PR, triage by severity, present a clear overview, and then guide the user through addressing each one — whether that means fixing the code or crafting a reply.
Quality matters. When you fix something, fix it properly — with tests, just as if you were writing the code from scratch. A reviewer asked for a change because they care about the codebase; honor that by doing the fix right.
Phase 1: Identify the PR
$ARGUMENTS may contain a PR number, URL, or owner/repo#number. If empty, detect from the current branch:
gh pr view --json number,url,title,headRefName,baseRefName 2>/dev/null
If no PR is found, ask the user which PR to work on.
Store these for later: PR_NUMBER, PR_URL, OWNER, REPO, HEAD_REF, BASE_REF.
Derive OWNER and REPO from gh repo view --json owner,name or by parsing the PR URL.
Phase 2: Fetch everything
Fetch all data in parallel:
2.1 Review threads (primary source — gives threads, resolution status, and all comments)
gh api graphql -f query='
query($owner: String!, $repo: String!, $number: Int!) {
repository(owner: $owner, name: $repo) {
pullRequest(number: $number) {
author { login }
reviewThreads(first: 100) {
nodes {
id
isResolved
comments(first: 50) {
nodes {
id
databaseId
body
author { login }
path
line
originalLine
diffHunk
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
' -f owner="$OWNER" -f repo="$REPO" -F number="$PR_NUMBER"
This is the single source of truth for inline review comments. It gives you:
- Thread-level
id(needed for resolving via GraphQL mutation) - Comment-level
databaseId(needed forin_reply_towhen posting replies via REST) - Resolution status per thread
- The full comment body, author, file path, and diff context
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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -7 lines c3d772c044b7
- 2mo ago First seen · 337 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A 1d2a05785891
review-comments is a skill published in the GitHub repository lensapp/lens-sandbox (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 2,899 once invoked, about $0.0004 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…