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 review-turborepogit 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-turborepo)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/review-turborepo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/review-turborepo/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-turborepo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template/review-turborepo.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 | $0.00072 | $0.00994 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00497 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00199 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
review-turborepo 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 — 63 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Turborepo
Review the Turborepo setup for alignment with current official best practices - task graph correctness, cache effectiveness, boundaries enforcement, and developer experience on this pnpm monorepo. Your reply must be a plan of suggested changes: concise, actionable, structured - not only prose.
Invocation
Text after the slash command is additional scope/focus (e.g. "caching only", "boundaries") - narrow the review accordingly.
Ground truth (mandatory)
Your pre-trained knowledge of Turborepo may be outdated. Do not draft suggestions from memory alone.
- Resolve "Turborepo" via the Context7 MCP (
resolve-library-id→query-docs):turbo.jsonschema (tasks,dependsOn, inputs/outputs, caches), boundaries tags syntax, global dependencies/env handling,turbo query. - For anything Context7 lacks, use Firecrawl search/scrape restricted to the official domain (
turborepo.comdocs) - boundaries reference, caching guide, upgrade notes for the pinned major. - Version currency: catalog
turbopin in pnpm-workspace.yaml vs latest stable; check the pinned major's deprecations against config keys in use (legacy keys are a common drift). - A local deep skill exists at
.agents/skills/turborepo/SKILL.md- consult it for repo-specific conventions, but treat official docs as ground truth. - Cite the retrieved source next to every finding; label anything unverifiable as Unverified.
Scope artifacts
- Root turbo.json - task pipeline,
boundaries.tags - Per-app/package
turbo.jsonfiles ("extends": ["//"],tagsentries) underapps/*,packages/* - Root scripts using turbo filters in package.json; CI
--affectedphase in .github/workflows/ci.yml - Remote-cache provisioning notes under
core/turborepo; lockfile/pnpm integration
Analysis axes
- Task graph:
dependsOncorrectness (build ← ^build, test/lint dependency shape);inputs/outputsdeclared so caches hit; env vars that affect builds captured (env/globalEnv) without over-invalidating. - Caching: local cache behavior sane; remote cache configured per repo provisioning path; tasks that should not be cached (dev, deploy, promote) marked correctly.
- Boundaries: tag rules in root
turbo.jsonenforce "nothing imports an app"; each package declares a valid tag (app,contracts,contracts-base,lib,config);pnpm boundariesis insideci. - Scoping & CI: filter idioms (
--filter=<pkg>,...pkg...,--affected) used where intended; GitHub CI--affectedlimited to the check/test/build phase as documented. - Version currency: new capabilities worth adopting (e.g. newer query/boundaries features); deprecated keys removed.
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 · 63 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A e73fa4b84bd3
review-turborepo is a skill published in the GitHub repository louisbrulenaudet/monorepo-template (19 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 994 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.
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.
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.
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.