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/neotoma --skill final-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/markmhendrickson/neotomaWrote 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/neotoma/final-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/markmhendrickson/neotoma/final-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/markmhendrickson/neotoma/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/neotoma/final-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/markmhendrickson/neotoma/final-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Agent Snooping · line 6 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00005 | $0.00739 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $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.
Copies of this mod
3 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- final-review — 95% identical, 7 lines differ
- final-review — 94% identical, 10 lines differ
- final_review — 91% identical, 12 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
name: final-review description: Final review workflow per foundation command. triggers:
- final review
- /final_review
- final-review
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 · 101 lines · 5 tokens per session scan A 804260c824b5
final-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository markmhendrickson/neotoma (34 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 5 tokens to every session and 739 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
reviewer
Code review - correctness, tests, merge-readiness.
review-thread
Record review verdicts and run the StateNote review thread on an agent-operation instance — every ReviewRequest verdict is one atomic batch-direct-write that advances status and co-writes a reviewnote explaining why, and findings are corrected by appending notes rather than editing them.
aura-integration
Automatically captures Gemini CLI intent and writes it to .gemini.intent whenever code changes are made. Use this skill when making any modifications to the codebase so that the local Aura Semantic Version Control system can track the AI's reasoning.
plumb-line-audit
Use when auditing a diff or repository against the plumb-line principles — finds laundered uncertainty, boundary leaks, hardcoded priors, overstated maturity, outputs lacking recorded lineage, and baseline drift with no explanation. Read-only: it reports, never auto-fixes.
cratis-engineering-csharp-conventions
Apply the Cratis C# house conventions when writing or reviewing C# in a Cratis repository - formatting, naming, records and primary constructors, nullable handling, XML documentation, custom exceptions, structured logging, dependency injection, and service lifetimes. Use for any "how should this be written" C# style…
cratis-engineering-review-rounds
Plan proportionate review rounds, distinguish blocking from advisory findings, and carry prior evidence into a delta round with a firm stopping point. Use when choosing a review round, handling blocking or advisory feedback, requesting a delta since the last reviewed SHA, or stopping recurring blockers. Not for review…