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 Lykhoyda/ask-llm --skill ask-llm-grok-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Lykhoyda/ask-llmWrote 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/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-grok-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-grok-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-grok-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/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-grok-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-grok-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 | $0.00055 | $0.00536 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00214 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00107 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
ask-llm-grok-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 14d 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 — 35 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Portable contract
Gather the relevant staged, unstaged, and untracked changes; build a bounded context brief; request an independent Grok review; verify every reported finding against source; and return only prioritized, source-supported findings. State that project context is sent to xAI and may incur API charges. Never enable billing, buy credits, use priority processing, substitute models, or retry on another model.
Host adapters
Pi adapter
Call the native ask-grok tool and apply the portable contract above.
Other hosts adapter
Codex, Cursor Agent, Antigravity, Grok Build, Gemini CLI and OpenCode get this skill from their skills folder, not from a plugin. Apply the portable contract above inline with a Grok call as described in ../ask-llm-review/transport.md (provider: "grok", reasoningEffort: "high").
Claude Code adapter
Review current code changes by delegating to the grok-reviewer agent.
- Confirm the user configured
XAI_API_KEYand understands xAI API usage is metered separately from any Grok consumer subscription. Do not configure billing or credits. - Gather
git diff,git diff --cached, and relevant untracked files. If there are no changes, say so. - Launch the
grok-revieweragent with a bounded diff and relevant project instructions. - If the Grok MCP tool is unavailable, explain how to register it without attempting another provider. For API use:
claude mcp add --scope user grok -e XAI_API_KEY="$XAI_API_KEY" -- npx -y @ask-llm/grok-mcpFor official Grok Build, install/authenticategrok, setASK_GROK_HARNESS=grok-cliin the MCP environment, and register the same package without silently switching from API. - Preserve provider/model/harness attribution and any xAI error verbatim after secret redaction. Never silently route to Codex, Gemini, or another model.
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.
- 14d ago First seen · 35 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A dc14f3e46724
ask-llm-grok-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lykhoyda/ask-llm (18 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 536 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 2026-10-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.
verify-module
A module-checking skill that scans a project’s folders, code, and documentation. It expects each module to include a README.md and DESIGN.md, which explain how the module is used and why it was designed that way.
verify-quality
A code-quality checker that measures complexity, size, naming, and common code smells. It reports problems such as duplicated code, unused code, and overly long functions.
red-team-review
Unified adversarial review, two modes. Strategic Matrix v4.3 (MTA-004) for arguments/plans/decisions: Priors → Rubric → Adversarial Lenses → SWOT/TOWS → MCDA → Blind Spot/Kill Switch → Summary. Deliverable Audit for built artefacts (assignments, reports, code outputs): isolated fresh-context hunt against the brief…
review-preflight
Review tooling for a PR: review-preflight prints REVIEW.md's criteria and the PR's live gate state before a review; ci-triage maps a PR's failing checks to already-filed issues.