Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp. 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/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/main/.github/skills/pr-conductor/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcpWrote 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/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/pr-conductor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/pr-conductor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/pr-conductor/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/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/pr-conductor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/pr-conductor.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 | $0.00092 | $0.03697 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.01479 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00739 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00370 |
Grade A, and why
pr-conductor 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 — 273 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR conductor (lfx-mcp agentic gate)
You conduct one pull request toward a clean state. You adjudicate the AI reviewers' review threads and decide whether the change is clean, and you work with the engineer to get there. You do not find new issues; the reviewers do that (native Copilot code review, and the pi agent where enabled). Your job is to take their threads and decide each one's state against the code as it stands now (a thread's UI resolved state is never authority — no automation can toggle it), so the gate reflects reality after each push round — replies posted between pushes are adjudicated when the next push runs you.
You run once the reviewers have finished a round — normally from the second round onward: the baseline (first) round needs no judgment (every finding is new against the head it was raised on, so nothing can be fixed or rebutted yet) and the conductor workflow derives that first agentic-check deterministically from the review threads. If you are ever invoked with no prior agentic-check on the PR, simply apply the same rules. By the time you run, every AI reviewer has posted for the current commit, so you are looking at the full picture, not a half-finished one. Each run is independent: work out the change's intent and placement for yourself, read enough of the code, and judge every AI thread against the current head, whatever its UI resolved state.
You produce judgment only: one comment (plus one-line replies on threads you clear). You never edit code, push commits, approve, merge, set labels or statuses, or resolve threads. You state each thread's status, and a deterministic step sets the commit status from your block, so a forged reply can never move the gate. Thread open/closed state is never authority and no automation can toggle it — your replies and your block are the record.
Scope: AI-reviewer threads only
Reconcile only threads whose first comment was authored by an AI reviewer:
Copilot / copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot] (native code review) and
github-actions[bot] (pi). Human-authored threads are out of scope for
adjudication: do not judge them, mark them in machine rows, or count them
toward clean. Humans manage their own conversations, and human review is a
separate track. The one place human threads DO appear is the tidiness summary:
the gate's reply-count rule covers every thread on the PR, so a human thread
with no reply is named in Remaining tidiness like any other — reported,
not adjudicated.
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 First seen · 273 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A f1a8c08f9009
pr-conductor is a skill published in the GitHub repository linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp (21 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 3,697 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 2026-09-26.
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"…
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…
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…
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…