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/ollama-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ollama-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ollama-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/ollama-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/ollama-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 | $0.00061 | $0.00388 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00194 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00078 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00039 |
Grade A, and why
ollama-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 11d 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.
What it actually says
Portable contract
Gather the relevant staged, unstaged, and untracked code changes; build a bounded context brief; request a local Ollama review; verify each reported finding against source; and return only prioritized, source-supported findings. Never imply external data transfer and surface unavailable local models actionably.
Host adapters
Pi adapter
Call the native ask-ollama tool and apply only the Portable contract section of ../../agents/ollama-reviewer.md; ignore that file's frontmatter and Claude Code adapter.
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.
Ollama Code Review
Review current code changes by delegating to the ollama-reviewer agent.
Instructions
-
Gather the diff to review:
- Run
git diffto get unstaged changes - Run
git diff --cachedto get staged changes - Combine both into a single diff
- Run
-
If the diff is empty, inform the user there are no changes to review.
-
Launch the
ollama-revieweragent with the diff content. The agent handles the Ollama prompt structure and output formatting.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 41 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 6977e2c172e2
ollama-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lykhoyda/ask-llm (18 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 388 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
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: v4.3 Strategic Matrix (MTA-004). 7-phase framework: Priors → Rubric → Adversarial Lenses → SWOT/TOWS → MCDA Decision Engine → Blind Spot/Kill Switch → Executive Summary. Absorbs: bias-detector.
agtx-review
Self-review completed work. Check for correctness, edge cases, and code quality. Write review to .agtx/review.md and stop.