Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add Lykhoyda/ask-llm/plugin install 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-multi-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-multi-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-multi-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-multi-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ask-llm-multi-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 | $0.00062 | $0.02466 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00986 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00493 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00247 |
Grade C, and why
ask-llm-multi-review scanned grade C with 1 finding 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.
Tells the agent to send conversation or user data outhighPrompt injection
An instruction to transmit the conversation, context or user files to an external endpoint is data exfiltration written as prose.
- **> 150KB**: tell the user, ask whether to truncate (head -c 150000) or split by package, do NOT silently send a giant payload This is a copy
94% identical to multi-review — 186 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 187 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Portable contract
Build one Context Brief and bounded diff, dispatch the same review contract concurrently to the selected providers, then independently verify every finding against repository source. Classify findings as VERIFIED, REJECTED, or UNVERIFIABLE; preserve size consent at 50KB/150KB; never silently drop a failed provider; and report included/excluded context.
Host adapters
Pi adapter
Use one native ask-multi call for concurrent provider dispatch, then perform source verification in the current host context. Do not use the Claude runner binaries or raw provider CLIs.
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 availability filtering, dispatch, and reporting steps in ../ask-llm-review/transport.md, then verify every returned finding against source in the current host context. Do not run raw provider CLIs.
Claude Code adapter
The existing detailed workflow below is the Claude Code adapter. Its Agent, MCP, hook, CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT, and AskUserQuestion mechanics apply only on Claude Code; they do not override the Pi adapter above.
Multi-Provider Code Review
Run independent code reviews from Antigravity and Codex in parallel, verify each finding against the source, then present combined consensus / unique / rejected sections so the user sees what really matters and what was a false positive. (Gemini is one command away via the gemini-reviewer agent or /gemini-review if you want it in the mix.)
Why verification matters
Confidence scores are not an oracle. In a real session on 2026-04-17, Gemini returned two findings at 95/100 confidence that were factually wrong (a z.enum([]) claim that ignored an existing fallback, and an "MCP SDK doesn't support outputSchema" claim that was contradicted by the actual .d.ts). Both would have caused a mis-fix if accepted at face value. Always verify before presenting.
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 · 187 lines · 62 tokens per session scan C bf16db71ace8
ask-llm-multi-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lykhoyda/ask-llm (18 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 2,466 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (tells the agent to send conversation or user data out). It is 94% identical to multi-review, differing in 186 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.