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 LucasDuys/forge --skill reviewinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LucasDuys/forgeWrote 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/lucasduys/forge/reviewing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lucasduys/forge/reviewing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lucasduys/forge/reviewing/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/lucasduys/forge/reviewing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lucasduys/forge/reviewing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00019 | $0.01727 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00691 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00345 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00173 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing 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 — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing Skill
This skill defines the two-pass review workflow that validates implementation quality before a task is marked complete. It is dispatched after a task is implemented and tests pass (at depth >= standard).
Inputs
You will receive:
- Implemented code: The files created or modified by the executor for this task
- Spec requirements: The R-numbered requirements and acceptance criteria this task must satisfy
- Task definition: From the frontier file, including task name, dependencies, and repo
- Review iteration: Which review pass this is (1, 2, or 3)
Two-Pass Review Workflow
Pass 1: Spec Compliance Review (mandatory for depth >= standard)
This is the primary review pass. It verifies that the implementation actually satisfies the spec.
Procedure:
- Read the actual code. Do NOT trust the implementer's report or summary. Open every file that was created or modified and read it.
- List every acceptance criterion from the spec requirements assigned to this task.
- Check each criterion against the code:
- Is there code that implements this criterion?
- Does the implementation match what the criterion specifies (not just approximate it)?
- Is the criterion fully satisfied, or only partially?
- Flag missing implementations — acceptance criteria with no corresponding code.
- Flag extra features — code that goes beyond what the spec requires. Over-engineering wastes tokens and introduces unnecessary complexity. If the spec says "return 201 with {id, email}", the code should not also return
created_at,updated_at, androleunless the spec asks for them. - Flag misunderstandings — code that implements something different from what the criterion describes. Example: spec says "hash with bcrypt (min 12 rounds)" but code uses SHA-256.
Output for Pass 1:
## Spec Compliance
STATUS: PASS | ISSUES
CHECKED CRITERIA:
- [x] R001/AC1: POST /auth/register accepts {email, password} — implemented in src/controllers/auth.ts:45
- [ ] R001/AC2: Password hashed with bcrypt (min 12 rounds) — MISSING, no hashing found
- [x] R001/AC3: Returns 201 with JWT + refresh token — implemented in src/controllers/auth.ts:67
ISSUES (if any):
- [CRITICAL] src/controllers/auth.ts — R001/AC2: No password hashing implemented. Raw password stored directly.
- [IMPORTANT] src/controllers/auth.ts:67 — Returns extra fields (created_at, role) not in spec. Over-engineering.
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 · 140 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 3ec5eff1d320
reviewing is a skill published in the GitHub repository LucasDuys/forge (56 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 1,727 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code
Use BEFORE generating, refactoring, reviewing, or debugging code. Trigger phrases include "write a function/script/class for X", "review this code/diff/PR", "refactor this", "debug this error", "is this implementation correct", "what's wrong with this code", "improve this code", "translate from X to Y", or any prompt…
improve-codebase-architecture
Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain language in CONTEXT.md and the decisions in docs/adr/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.
code-review-excellence
Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.
make-pr-easy-to-review
Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
Run an extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth. Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review, thermonuclear review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability review.
blast-radius
Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', reviewing a small diff you don't trust, or a brief that asserts something about existing code…