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 markmhendrickson/ateles --skill final-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/markmhendrickson/atelesWrote 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/markmhendrickson/ateles/final-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/markmhendrickson/ateles/final-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/markmhendrickson/ateles/final-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/markmhendrickson/ateles/final-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/markmhendrickson/ateles/final-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 | $0.00010 | $0.00738 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00295 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
final-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
94% identical to final-review — 10 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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Final Review
Present final implementation for review and approval for Feature Unit {{input:feature_id}}.
Follow foundation/development/feature_unit_workflow.md Step 4 (Checkpoint 2 — Final Review). Configuration is read from foundation-config.yaml.
Implements Checkpoint 2 of the Feature Unit creation workflow. Presents the completed implementation for human review and approval.
Trigger
- Implementation complete
- Tests passing
- PR created (if required by config)
Tasks
-
Load configuration:
- Read
foundation-config.yamlto get feature unit settings - Determine directory structure, testing requirements, git workflow
- Read
-
Run spec compliance validation (if available):
- Execute spec compliance validation script (if repository has one)
- If compliance check fails: STOP and present compliance report to user
- List all gaps found
- Require user to fix gaps, update spec, or explicitly defer requirements before proceeding
- Re-run compliance check after fixes
- If compliance check passes or not available, continue to next step
-
Gather implementation summary:
- List all files changed
- List tests added (with pass status)
- List documentation updated
- PR link and status (if PR required)
- Compliance report link (if generated)
-
Verify completion:
- All required tests passing (based on config)
- Coverage meets configured targets
- PR created with proper format (if required)
- Spec compliance validation passed (if available)
-
Present summary:
- Files changed (count and key files)
- Tests added/passing
- Coverage achieved vs target
- Documentation updated
- PR link (if applicable)
- Spec compliance status (if available)
-
STOP and prompt user:
- "Implementation complete. PR: [link]" (if applicable)
- "Please review the implementation"
- "Approve for merge? (yes/no)"
- "Any final changes needed? (list or 'none')"
- "Spec compliance validation: ✅ Pass / ❌ Fail (see report: [link])" (if available)
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 First seen · 95 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A f54fcb0ab35b
final-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository markmhendrickson/ateles (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 738 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to final-review, differing in 10 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-pr
A pull-request review skill for evaluating proposed code changes and posting a quality verdict. A pull request is a request to merge changes into a shared codebase.
reconcile-docs
Best-effort reconciliation of the living architecture corpus against the code: the model reads docs/architecture/ plus the code and lists divergences with coordinates. Advisory only — an opinion of the model, never a verified verdict, no gates and no stamps. Nothing is applied automatically: corpus edits are a…
review
A read-only second opinion on a completed TASK, produced by another coding agent or by a separate clean-context review.
check-work
Check your work with a verification subagent that reviews diffs, runs builds and tests, and evaluates correctness. Read this file for instructions. Use when asked to "check work", "verify changes", "self-verify", "/check-work", "/check", "/verify", or "/self-verify".
code-review
Use this skill when the user asks for a code review, audit, or “what could be wrong here”. The output should be a review, not a rewrite: prioritize bugs, security risks, behavioral regressions, and missing tests.
pr-checks
Run comprehensive PR checks including reviewing CodeRabbit comments, ensuring PR description quality, running pre-commit hooks, tests, and validation. Use on an existing PR to address review feedback.