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 lyarwood/kubevirt-ai-helpers --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lyarwood/kubevirt-ai-helpersWrote 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/lyarwood/kubevirt-ai-helpers/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lyarwood/kubevirt-ai-helpers/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lyarwood/kubevirt-ai-helpers/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/lyarwood/kubevirt-ai-helpers/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lyarwood/kubevirt-ai-helpers/review.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 | $0.00038 | $0.02228 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00891 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00446 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00223 |
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 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 — 193 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
KubeVirt Review Checklist
This skill defines the shared review checklist, multi-pass methodology, and output formatting rules used by both /kubevirt:review (local branch) and /kubevirt:review-pr (remote GitHub PR) commands.
Multi-Pass Review Approach
Every review follows three analysis passes applied to the diff:
- General Design Pass: Verify the overall design makes sense and code structure is consistent with the project
- Detailed Code Pass: In-depth, line-by-line analysis of the implementation
- Standards Compliance Pass: Check adherence to KubeVirt coding conventions listed below
For each issue found, note the file path and relevant diff context. Categorize findings by severity.
Review Checklist
Apply the KubeVirt coding conventions and reviewer guidelines from the upstream documentation. These docs are the authoritative source - read them in full before starting the review.
Locating the Convention Docs
Local reviews (/kubevirt:review): Read the following files from the KubeVirt repo (typically the current working directory):
docs/coding-conventions.mddocs/reviewer-guide.md
Remote PR reviews (/kubevirt:review-pr): Fetch the docs from the PR's target repository using gh api:
gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/contents/docs/coding-conventions.md -q '.content' | base64 -d
gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/contents/docs/reviewer-guide.md -q '.content' | base64 -d
If the target repo does not contain these files (e.g. sub-projects like containerized-data-importer), fetch from kubevirt/kubevirt instead.
What to Check
Read both docs thoroughly and apply all conventions they describe. Key review areas include:
- Code quality, style consistency, and readability
- Testing requirements (unit tests, E2E tests, Eventually patterns)
- Architecture patterns (informers vs GET/LIST, PATCH vs UPDATE, RBAC, thread safety)
- Go conventions (imports, naming, interfaces, error handling)
- PR structure (commit messages, scope, rebase preference)
- Dependencies (trusted sources, maintenance)
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 · 193 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A da629e089aff
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository lyarwood/kubevirt-ai-helpers (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 2,228 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
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…