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.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00019 | $0.01727 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00864 |
| Sonnet 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 7d 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.
- 7d ago First seen · 140 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 3ec5eff1d320
reviewing is a skill published in the GitHub repository LucasDuys/forge (55 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 1,727 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
generic-react-code-reviewer
Review React/TypeScript code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, GPU-accelerated animations, WCAG AA accessibility, bundle size limits, and surgical simplicity. Use when completing features, before commits, or…
generic-static-code-reviewer
Review static site code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces pure HTML/CSS/JS standards, minimal page weight, mobile-first design. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing changes.
contribute
Complete contribution workflow using git-town. Create branch → commit → PR → ship. Preflight at every step.
pre-ship-review
Run a structured quality review before shipping code at any checkpoint such as PRs, releases, or milestones. Use whenever the user says.
code-clone-assistant
Detect and refactor code duplication with PMD CPD. TRIGGERS - code clones, DRY violations, duplicate code.