Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mamertofabian/mcp-everything-search. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mamertofabian/mcp-everything-search/main/.claude/skills/maid-implementation-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mamertofabian/mcp-everything-searchWrote 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/mamertofabian/mcp-everything-search/maid-implementation-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mamertofabian/mcp-everything-search/maid-implementation-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mamertofabian/mcp-everything-search/maid-implementation-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/mamertofabian/mcp-everything-search/maid-implementation-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mamertofabian/mcp-everything-search/maid-implementation-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 | $0.00056 | $0.03668 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.01467 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00734 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00367 |
Grade A, and why
maid-implementation-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 354 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MAID Implementation Review
Review MAID-backed implementation work in read-only mode. Confirm the code matches the approved contract and that validation integrity was preserved.
Rules
- NEVER edit files.
- NEVER modify tests or manifests during review.
- When you are the coordinating reviewer, run an independent read-only reviewer subagent before deciding the handoff verdict whenever reviewer subagents are available and have not been explicitly disabled for the turn.
- Reviewer subagents must be fresh, context-minimal review agents. Never use a full-history fork or pass prior implementation reasoning, conclusions, or chat transcript unless the review explicitly depends on a user quote.
- Keep reviewer prompts verdict-neutral in every review round. Never label a reviewer request as final, approval, merge-readiness, blocker-closure, or convergence. Never state that fixes work or summarize intended behavior as established fact. Do not disclose prior findings, fixes, verdicts, or review-round state. Those convergence decisions belong only to the coordinator after the independent reviewer responds.
- If your prompt identifies you as the reviewer subagent, do not spawn another subagent. Perform the review locally and return the verdict.
- Confirm changed implementation stays within writable production file scope:
files.create,files.edit,files.scope, orfiles.delete.files.readis dependency context and does not authorize production edits. - Artifact validation applies to declarations in
files.createandfiles.editonly; scope-only and deleted files do not declare public artifacts. - Flag any implementation-phase manifest or behavioral-test edit as a process violation unless explicitly approved by the user.
- Treat concrete behavior regressions, undeclared public API drift, and missing validation as primary findings.
- Audit fidelity to the approved plan, including rationale and
temptations; passing tests are not sufficient if the implementation took a path the manifest warned against. - If
plan-revision.mdexists, review it as a stop signal rather than an implementation failure.
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 · 354 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 4951b4dfa3cf
maid-implementation-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mamertofabian/mcp-everything-search (367 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 3,668 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 2026-10-18.
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…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
plugin-review
Review plugin quality with tiered checks and dependency scoping. Use for PR and pre-release audits.