ln-81-skill-reviewer

ln-81-skill-reviewer is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills. It costs 22 tokens per session (2,572 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A review skill for checking the instructions, activation rules, and distribution agreements of other skills. It reviews them without changing the repository or outside systems.

In plain words
What is it for?
It is for auditing skill quality, tracking evidence for each requirement, and identifying unresolved gaps.
Why use it?
It helps find incomplete checks and unsupported conclusions while keeping the review separate from implementation work.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one. Also seen: mentions subagents.

Good fit It is for auditing skill quality, tracking evidence for each requirement, and identifying unresolved gaps.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-81-skill-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Its marketplace also offers this one on its own, as the plugin skill-maintenance-suite — /plugin install skill-maintenance-suite after adding the marketplace above.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for ln-81-skill-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-81-skill-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for ln-81-skill-reviewer

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 22 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,572 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00022 $0.02572
Opus 5.5 $0.00009 $0.01029
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00004 $0.00514
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00257

Measured 18d ago against content hash 8380f5faef37, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

ln-81-skill-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 18d 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.

plugins/skill-maintenance-suite/skills/ln-81-skill-reviewer/SKILL.md · 115 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Skill Reviewer

Goal: Review skill quality and configured distribution surfaces without modifying reviewed source or external systems. Distinguish static contract assurance from observed execution behavior.

Execution contract: Track every checklist item as PENDING, PROVEN with observed outcome evidence, CLEARED with evidence its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap. Reading, delegation, tool failure, zero exit status, and self-reported success are not proof. 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, mode, and existing authorization. Complete authorized work before required external approval; ask only consequential unresolved choices. If nobody can answer, report the exact question and apply the skill's gap verdict without waiting or guessing. Cite any blocking instruction and unresolved boundary; never invent approval gates. Scale depth to material risk; preserve mandatory checks, dependencies, and safety order while choosing verification methods. Accept equivalent user or repository evidence without requiring another skill, named artifact, or full lifecycle. Preserve source requirement and decision IDs. Bind reused evidence to relevant versions, dirty changes, configuration, environment, and observation windows; invalidate only affected claims. Choose the primary workflow by outcome and explicit selection. Consume neighboring contracts and valid evidence without duplicating ownership or restarting audits. Split distinct deliverables by scope, not mandatory skill invocation. Broad independent assessments use audit workflows; focused domain reviews remain read-only. On continuation, reconcile task, authorization, state, and gaps. Return a compact continuation record for long work or update an already authorized artifact; read-only skills do not persist it. Distinguish artifact readiness, verified behavior, and external-action authority. Trace applicable requirements to their authoritative owner, planned or implemented change, acceptance evidence and status in the existing artifact or response; no new registry is required. Explicit constraints remain binding until an authorized deviation; risk determines priority, not permission to ignore them. Investigate the causal flow beyond initially named files. Within implementation authority, include structural repair needed for the outcome; minimize total complexity and risk, not changed lines. This does not authorize unrelated cleanup or mutation during review. Before retrieval, define the evidence question; read selectively without skipping applicable instructions. Use tools for mechanical processing; summarize bounded results, errors, coverage, and source paths, keeping full output outside context. Before technical decisions, establish applicability and actual versions; verify version-dependent assumptions against official documentation or specifications. Search and read primary pages for current external recommendations; snippets are not evidence. Version-matched bundled documentation or valid prior evidence suffices. Record decision, version, source, and limitations. Mark unavailable evidence UNVERIFIED; block only essential dependent work. Prefer native mechanisms, justify added tools or abstractions with evidence, and reuse the existing rule owner.

Read the full file on GitHub · 115 lines

Files

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.

Changes

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.

  1. 18d ago Changed · +4 lines 8380f5faef37
  2. 24d ago Changed · -7 lines 747c48517d67
  3. 1mo ago Changed d84f1aae5620
  4. 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 50abcd41d678
  5. 1mo ago First seen · 117 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 74555224911b

Subscribe to this mod's changes

ln-81-skill-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills (587 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 2,572 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.

Related

ln-81-skill-reviewer compared with skills from other repositories

ln-81-skill-reviewer next to 6 skills from other repositories
ModTypeStarsLast pushLicenceScanTokensWorks with
ln-81-skill-reviewerlevnikolaevich/claude-code-skillsSkill587yesterdayMITA22Claude Code, Codex
babysitmichael-denyer/pstack-claudeSkill4.1kyesterdayMITA61Claude Code
make-pr-easy-to-reviewmichael-denyer/pstack-claudeSkill4.1kyesterdayMITA57Claude Code
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-reviewmichael-denyer/pstack-claudeSkill4.1kyesterdayMITA54Claude Code
no-commentsmichael-denyer/pstack-claudeSkill4.1kyesterdayMITA24Claude Code
thermo-nuclear-reviewmichael-denyer/pstack-claudeSkill4.1kyesterdayMITA59Claude Code
blast-radiusmichael-denyer/pstack-claudeSkill4.1kyesterdayMITA87Claude Code