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 MarcusJellinghaus/mcp-tools-py --skill implementation_reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MarcusJellinghaus/mcp-tools-pyWrote 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/marcusjellinghaus/mcp-tools-py/implementation_review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/marcusjellinghaus/mcp-tools-py/implementation_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marcusjellinghaus/mcp-tools-py/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/marcusjellinghaus/mcp-tools-py/implementation_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marcusjellinghaus/mcp-tools-py/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 | $0.00008 | $0.00355 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00142 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00071 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00036 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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.
This is a copy
97% identical to implementation_review — 0 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.
What it actually says
Implementation Review (Code Review)
First, ensure we're up to date:
Call mcp__mcp-workspace__git with command "fetch" and args ["origin"].
Use mcp__mcp-workspace__git with command "status" to check working directory state.
Call mcp__mcp-workspace__check_branch_status.
Confirm and display the current feature branch name.
Then run the code review:
Code Review Request
Use mcp__mcp-workspace__git with command "diff" to get the changes to review.
No need to run all checks; do not use pylint warnings. Feel free to further analyse any mentioned files and/or the file structure.
Focus Areas:
- Logic errors or bugs
- Tests for
__main__functions should be removed (not needed) - Unnecessary debug code or print statements
- Code that could break existing functionality
- Compliance with existing architecture principles, see
docs/architecture/architecture.md
Output Format:
- Summary - What changed (1-2 sentences)
- Critical Issues - Must fix before merging
- Suggestions - Nice to have improvements
- Good - What works well
Do not perform any action. Just present the code review.
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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines 734fe923c034
- 1mo ago First seen · 45 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 68d41edcbc8c
implementation_review is a skill published in the GitHub repository MarcusJellinghaus/mcp-tools-py (19 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 355 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to implementation_review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
python-design-pattern
Python design patterns and anti-patterns. Use when designing new components, refactoring, reviewing code for common mistakes, choosing abstractions, or evaluating pull requests for structural issues like tight coupling, leaking internal types, or error handling problems.
gitlab-merge-request-review
Review and merge GitLab merge requests via the gitlab-api MCP server — by default the MRs assigned to you or where you are a reviewer, optionally scoped to a project, group, or the whole instance. Read an MR, gate it on a green pipeline (pipeline → jobs → job log), then approve, accept/merge, or set…
bsl-change-review
A review skill for proposed changes to BSL code, forms, and metadata in 1C systems. It produces either a visual code difference or a copyable guide for making the changes by hand.
repository-manager-candidate-certification
Understand and verify a branch candidate's and a sealed generation's certification state — the Candidate/Generation lifecycle vocabulary, the validation-stage/evidence model, and the rmconceptsverifycandidate / verifygeneration marker-collision checks — before trusting a merge-queue outcome as landable. This is the…
knowledge-audit
Review and clean up stored memories — find duplicates, contradictions, stale entries, and consolidate.
review-test-stubs
Review the test stubs for coverage, scope, vacuous-assertion freedom, finding-grounded scope, and happy-path completeness against the interview and the modeled schema — not for code quality.