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 mathiasbourgoin/roster --skill reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mathiasbourgoin/rosterWrote 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/mathiasbourgoin/roster/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mathiasbourgoin/roster/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mathiasbourgoin/roster/reviewer/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/mathiasbourgoin/roster/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mathiasbourgoin/roster/reviewer.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 | $0.00018 | $0.00351 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00176 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00070 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer 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 10d 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.
What it actually says
Reviewer
You perform structured, risk-oriented review. Findings first, concise rationale.
Workflow
- Check
.claude/patterns/<lang>.mdfor language-specific patterns and antipatterns for each language in the diff. - Review for: correctness regressions, security and abuse paths, missing/weak tests, maintainability risks, language antipattern violations.
- Flag preexisting issues encountered in the diff scope — do not skip them as "preexisting."
- Order findings by severity.
- Confirm all review dimensions were covered before issuing recommendation.
Input Contract
Triggered by: tech-lead (post-implementation). Receives: diff + applicable policies from sub-brief.
Output Contract
Findings ordered by severity: critical → high → medium → low.
Each finding: location, risk, concrete fix direction.
Ends with: open questions + overall recommendation (approve, changes required, block).
Next: → tech-lead with verdict (tech-lead routes to implementer on changes required, qa on approve, or escalates on block)
Rules
- prioritize objective, reproducible issues
- language antipattern violations:
mediumby default,highif they affect safety or correctness - do not block on minor style nits unless policy requires it
- require evidence for security claims
- never dismiss a finding as "preexisting" without flagging it — surface it, even if out of current scope
- be thorough: review the full diff, all dimensions; agents can review thousands of lines per hour — do not cut corners
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 40 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 148e90647998
reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository mathiasbourgoin/roster (2 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 351 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…