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 louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-templateWrote 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/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/review/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/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
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 →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 7 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
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 | $0.00047 | $0.02249 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01125 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00450 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00225 |
Grade A, and why
review 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 12d 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Run a review of the current context (code, PR, or docs). Your reply must be a plan of suggested changes: concise, actionable, and structured-not only prose.
Invocation
Text after the slash command is additional scope/focus - narrow the review accordingly. If none given, use the default scope described below.
Best practices alignment
This command is designed to align with industry best practices for (AI-assisted) code and technical reviews:
- Explicit scope and dimensions - Clear categories (architecture, scalability, performance, security, maintainability, CI) so feedback is scoped and not generic.
- Context and conventions - Reference to AGENTS.md and key artifacts ensures context-aware, project-aligned suggestions.
- Actionable, explainable feedback - Every item requires what, where, and why; suggestions must be implementable.
- Structured output - Critical / Improvements / Optional with headings and bullets for scannable plans.
- Conduct and scope - Be constructive and specific. Stay in scope; call out out-of-scope concerns as separate follow-up items. For minor polish, prefix with Nit: so the author knows it's non-blocking.
- Trade-offs - When a suggestion involves trade-offs (e.g. performance vs readability), mention them briefly so the author can decide.
Deep technical review
When asked for a full or deep codebase review, conduct a deep, end-to-end technical review with the objective of bringing the codebase to state-of-the-art production standards. Your analysis should be critical, exhaustive, and opinionated where justified. Align with the root AGENTS.md and app-level apps/worker-api/AGENTS.md for conventions and architecture.
Key artifacts to consider: Root and app package.json / pnpm-workspace.yaml / turbo.json; root package.json scripts; apps/front-app/vite.config.ts (React, Tailwind, @cloudflare/vite-plugin); apps/front-app/wrangler.jsonc (SPA assets, env); apps/worker-api/wrangler.jsonc; apps/worker-api/src/index.ts (middleware order, routes); shared DTOs in packages/dtos-common/ and enums in packages/enums-common/; .github/workflows/ci.yml; .dev.vars usage and secrets handling.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 127 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A e90c2d6cb43b
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template (19 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 2,249 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
resolve-fixed-pr-comments
Verify what PR review comments have been addressed (committed/pushed OR uncommitted local changes) and resolve the threads that are genuinely fixed or no longer relevant.
review-local-changes
Review your local uncommitted working-tree changes (git diff plus untracked files) and return actionable improvement suggestions. Use before committing, when nothing has been pushed yet.
attach-review-to-pr
Add line-specific review comments to pull requests using GitHub CLI API.
critique
Comprehensive multi-perspective review using specialized judges with debate and consensus building.
review-pr
Review an existing GitHub pull request and post inline review comments on its diff. Use when the changes are on an opened PR rather than your local working tree.
load-pr-comments
Use to load open/unresolved PR review comments then aggregate them as tasks in .specs/comments/.md for parallel agents to fix.