Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to markmhendrickson/foundation. 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/markmhendrickson/foundation/main/.cursor/skills/final-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/markmhendrickson/foundationWrote 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/foundation/final-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/markmhendrickson/foundation/final-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/markmhendrickson/foundation/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/foundation/final-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/markmhendrickson/foundation/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 | $0.00711 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00284 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00071 |
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
95% identical to final-review — 7 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 — 94 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 · 94 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 1dd915750944
final-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository markmhendrickson/foundation (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 711 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to final-review, differing in 7 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…