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 levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-52-delivery-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skillsWrote 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/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer/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/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-52-delivery-reviewer.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 | $0.00031 | $0.04331 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.01732 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00866 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00433 |
Grade A, and why
ln-52-delivery-reviewer 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 7d 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 — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Delivery Reviewer
Goal: Review only the requested delivery change and the causal paths needed to prove its business outcome. Judge scoped acceptance and release safety with concise evidence; do not audit unrelated code, repair findings, update trackers, or widen scope.
Execution contract: The checklist defines completion. Track each item internally as PENDING, PROVEN with evidence, CLEARED with evidence its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap; reading, delegation, tool failure, a zero exit status, or a self-reported success is not proof; only the observed outcome is. Reconcile after each section. Before returning, resolve all PENDING, count only PROVEN and CLEARED, and apply verdict and approval rules to every gap.
Preserve intent, scope, and existing authorization. Continue authorized work; ask only for consequential unresolved choices or required external approval. When no one can answer during the run, state the exact question and apply the skill's verdict for the remaining gap instead of waiting or guessing. Scale depth to material risk without skipping checks. Preserve dependency and safety order; otherwise choose an appropriate verification method.
Accept equivalent user or repository evidence; no other skill, named artifact, or complete lifecycle is required. Preserve source requirement and decision IDs. Bind reused evidence to relevant source versions, dirty changes, configuration, and environment; invalidate only affected claims.
On continuation, reconcile task, authorization, current state, and unresolved evidence. For long work, return a compact continuation record or update an already authorized artifact; read-only skills do not persist it. Distinguish artifact readiness, verified behavior, and external-action authority.
Prepare authorized work before required approval. If blocked by an instruction, cite its exact source and unresolved boundary; do not invent approval gates from caution.
Tool Routing
| Need | Preferred capability | Use when | Fallback |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope and repository state | Native file reads plus Git | Establishing outcome, non-goals, base, head, and worktree | Supplied requirements with explicit limitations |
| Changed behavior | Diff, status, and focused reads | Resolving the implementation delta and entrypoints | Compare supplied artifacts with their stated baseline |
| Definitions and consumers | Code intelligence | An affected path depends on unchanged symbols or contracts | Targeted search that stops when the causal path is proven |
| Automated verification | Repository-defined commands | Build, lint, type, test, migration, or smoke gates exist | Inspect scripts and CI; mark execution UNPROVEN |
| Observable behavior | Browser, client, or runtime evidence | Acceptance depends on UI, interaction, protocol, or logs | Static trace plus an exact manual check |
| Reuse and correction research | Installed manifests plus current official documentation, specifications, and package sources | A changed generic mechanism needs a reuse decision, external behavior affects correctness, or an externally dependent correction needs verification | Reputable primary engineering material; otherwise mark the decision or correction UNVERIFIED |
| Independent review | Native subagents in separate contexts | An unresolved distinct risk warrants independent evidence | Linked panel protocol; otherwise direct review with independence limits |
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 7d ago Changed 0fa5899725a0
- 23d ago Changed · -1 lines 0100ae0c6e9a
- 27d ago First seen · 133 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 772752309a26
ln-52-delivery-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills (573 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 4,331 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 2026-09-13.
Other skills, from other repositories
dev-rc
The last gate before merge — QA, security audit, review and changelog, with objective pass conditions.
babysit
Watch an open PR — fix failing CI, handle the straightforward review comments, and drive it to a mergeable state. Claude Code analog of Cursor's built-in /babysit. Use after opening a PR when the user wants the agent to shepherd it without re-prompting.
make-pr-easy-to-review
Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".
pr-creator
Creates or updates GitHub PRs with house-style titles and bodies, issue linking, repository templates, and draft state. Use when asked to "create a PR", "open a PR", "rewrite the PR description", or "polish this PR".
pr-creator
Create well-structured pull requests with proper descriptions and labels.
github-pr-creation
Creates GitHub Pull Requests with automated validation and task tracking. Use when user wants to create PR, open pull request, submit for review, or check if ready for PR. Analyzes commits, validates task completion, generates Conventional Commits title and description, suggests labels. NOTE - for merging existing…