Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to markmhendrickson/neotoma. 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/neotoma/main/.claude/skills/final-review/SKILL.mdgit 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 | $0.00003 | $0.00369 |
| Sonnet 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 9d 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 101 lines · 5 tokens per session scan A 804260c824b5
final-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository markmhendrickson/neotoma (32 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 5 tokens to every session and 739 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 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.
cratis-code-review
Review changed code in a Cratis application against the architecture, style, and specification-coverage criteria that the compiler cannot check, and produce a structured report with blocking issues separated from suggestions. Use when asked to review, check, or validate a change. Do not substitute it for a focused…
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…
review-code
Use this skill when asked to review, check, or validate code in a Cratis-based project. Produces a structured review report with blocking issues and suggestions, checked against all project architecture and style standards.
cratis-engineering-effect-boundaries
Apply the Cratis effect-boundary contract when writing or reviewing code that publishes, persists, generates, propagates, or releases. On those boundaries partial success is failure - no catch-and-continue, no defaulting to success on an unknown outcome. Use when a degraded run could still report success; defer style…