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 massgen/MassGen --skill pr-checksgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/massgen/MassGenWrote 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/massgen/massgen/pr-checks)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/massgen/massgen/pr-checks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/massgen/massgen/pr-checks/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/massgen/massgen/pr-checks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/massgen/massgen/pr-checks.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 | $0.00040 | $0.02013 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00805 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00403 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00201 |
Grade A, and why
pr-checks 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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 · 339 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 215c79d29bcc
pr-checks is a skill published in the GitHub repository massgen/MassGen (1,142 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 2,013 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
control-center-review
Review one captured Control Center build before runtime activation.
review-pr
Review GitHub pull requests. Use when user says "review PR", "review pull request", or "/review-pr".
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".
review
Review code changes, pull requests, patches, or a scoped code area for actionable correctness, security, compatibility, and test risks with file and line evidence. Use for review or audit requests; do not use for general proofreading, feature implementation, or debugging a reported failure when the user wants a fix.
debug
Diagnose a concrete failure, regression, crash, hang, flaky test, or incorrect runtime behavior by reproducing it, testing hypotheses, and identifying the evidence-backed root cause. Use when symptoms or failing output exist; do not use for feature implementation without a failure, general code review, or a conceptual…
simplify
Reduce unnecessary code complexity, duplication, indirection, or abstraction while preserving observable behavior and validating equivalence. Use for simplify, cleanup, or behavior-preserving refactor requests; do not use for adding features, diagnosing an unexplained failure, broad code review without a…