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 LingoVerse/mimir --skill review-rubricgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LingoVerse/mimirWrote 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/lingoverse/mimir/review-rubric)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lingoverse/mimir/review-rubric"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lingoverse/mimir/review-rubric/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/lingoverse/mimir/review-rubric"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lingoverse/mimir/review-rubric.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 | $0.00035 | $0.00986 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00493 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00197 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
review-rubric 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 8d 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review Rubric
You are reviewing a pull request diff. Your job is to find issues that genuinely matter and explain them clearly. A good reviewer is trusted because they are precise — they do not drown real problems in nitpicks. Bias toward fewer, higher-quality comments.
What to review (in priority order)
- Correctness — logic errors, off-by-one, wrong conditionals, unhandled error paths, race conditions, incorrect async/await, broken edge cases, misuse of APIs.
- Security — injection (SQL/command/template), missing authz/authn checks, secrets in
code, unsafe deserialization, SSRF, path traversal, unvalidated input crossing a trust
boundary. (A dedicated
security-checkskill goes deeper when sensitive paths change.) - Data & state — migrations that lose data or aren't reversible, N+1 queries, missing indexes implied by new query patterns, cache/invalidation bugs, money/precision handling.
- Resource & failure handling — leaks (connections, file handles, timers), missing timeouts/retries, unbounded growth, swallowed errors.
- API & contract — breaking changes to public interfaces, inconsistent error shapes, backward-incompatible schema changes without versioning.
- Tests — new logic landing with no test; tests that assert nothing; deleted tests.
- Readability & maintainability — only when it materially hurts comprehension or future change. Naming, dead code, duplicated logic worth extracting.
Severity scale
- critical — will break production, lose/corrupt data, or open a security hole. Must fix
before merge. Be conservative: only use
criticalwhen you're confident. - major — likely bug, real security weakness, or significant maintainability problem. Should fix before merge.
- minor — small bug, edge case, or clarity issue. Fix recommended, not blocking.
- nit — style/preference. Suppressed by default; only emit if explicitly enabled.
What NOT to comment on
- Formatting/style already enforced by a linter or formatter (Prettier/ESLint/etc.).
- Personal style preferences dressed up as problems.
- Things outside the diff (don't review unchanged code unless the diff clearly breaks it).
- Generated, vendored, lockfile, or minified content.
- Repeating the same finding on every occurrence — state it once, note "applies to N places".
- Praise-only comments. A short positive note in the summary is fine; inline praise is noise.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 88 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A b17991d384ab
review-rubric is a skill published in the GitHub repository LingoVerse/mimir (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 986 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
open-code-review-delegate
Delegation mode for open-code-review (OCR). Instead of OCR calling an LLM endpoint, this skill instructs the host agent to perform the code review itself, using OCR only for deterministic engineering: file selection and rule resolution. Use when the host agent should drive the review with its own LLM capabilities.
open-code-review
Performs AI-powered code review on Git changes using the ocr CLI from alibaba/open-code-review. Use when the user asks to review code, review a pull request, review staged/unstaged changes, review a commit, or compare branches for code quality issues. Produces line-level review comments and can automatically apply…
md-audit
Read-only code quality audit — scan the current working directory for common issues (bugs, dead code, security hotspots, missing error handling) and return a prioritised findings report. No files are edited. Use when asked to "audit the code", "quick audit", "find issues", "code scan", or "what's wrong with this…
code-review
Paranoid architect review of code changes for bugs, security, missing tests, and undocumented assumptions. Works on local git diffs OR a GitHub pull request (e.g. owner/repo N). For PRs, can post findings as line-level review comments.
parallel-pr-review
Use when asked to "review the open PRs", review a batch or stack of pull requests, or run a recurring PR-review pass on a repo — especially with many PRs, stacked branches, conflicts, or security-sensitive changes. Covers grouping, fan-out to review subagents, verdict synthesis, and posting.
qa-review
QA review for code changes — test coverage analysis, edge case identification, test plan generation, regression detection, test health tracking over time.