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/sol-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/sol-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/sol-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/sol-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lykhoyda/ask-llm/sol-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 | $0.00050 | $0.01018 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00509 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00204 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
sol-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 9d 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 — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Portable contract
Gather a bounded diff and context brief, request a read-only Codex review explicitly pinned to gpt-5.6-sol with reasoningEffort: "high", verify findings against source, and disclose any model or transport fallback. Do not silently substitute another provider.
Host adapters
Pi adapter
Call ask-codex with model: "gpt-5.6-sol", reasoningEffort: "high", and sandbox: "read-only"; apply only the portable contract in ../../agents/sol-reviewer.md and disclose fallback metadata.
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.
Sol Code Review
Run a read-only, precision-first review explicitly pinned to GPT-5.6 Sol at high reasoning effort.
Workflow
- Run
git status --short,git diff, andgit diff --cached. - Include untracked files the user wants reviewed with
git add -N <path>so their contents appear in the diff without staging them. - If the combined diff is empty, report that there are no changes to review.
- Read the root and file-scoped
CLAUDE.mdfiles plus any ADRs cited by changed code. - Preflight the transport through the shipped executable contract:
- Search the current tool surface for the exact
ask-codexleaf tool. The executable correlates its client-assigned server prefix with an active@ask-llm/codex-mcpregistration; similarly named tools and tools from unrelated servers are not authoritative. - Run
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/sol-review-transport.mjs" --plugin-dir "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}" --cli-path "$(command -v codex || true)", adding--tool "<resolved tool name>"only when the exactask-codextool resolved. Mirror any session-local--mcp-config,--settings,--setting-sources, and--strict-mcp-configflags so the nested inventory sees the same configuration as the active session. - Preserve the returned
state,diagnostic,remediation, andfallbackDisclosure. The executable readsclaude mcp listwith that session context:missing-registrationmeans that active inventory has no supported registration;unavailablemeans it contains the registration but the current tool surface does not expose a usable tool, reports failed health, or the MCP invocation failed;inventory-unavailablemeans the active inventory could not be inspected, so registration and service health are unknown. Do not collapse those states into a generic "no MCP" message. Iftransportis null, stop and show the executable remediation instead of launching the agent. - Parent availability remains advisory because subagents do not always inherit the session's MCP servers. The reviewer's fallback runner re-reads the active inventory and reclassifies the absent subagent tool before executing the CLI fallback.
- Search the current tool surface for the exact
- Launch the
sol-revieweragent with the diff and a compact context brief containing the changed files, applicable conventions, referenced ADRs, the user's requested review focus, and the complete preflight result. - Return the agent's validated findings without adding unverified issues.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 46 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 2cde190a0475
sol-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Lykhoyda/ask-llm (18 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,018 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
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.
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.
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.
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.
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.