Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mathiasbourgoin/rosternpx agentmods add skills/mathiasbourgoin/roster/roster-reviewWrote 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/roster-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mathiasbourgoin/roster/roster-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mathiasbourgoin/roster/roster-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/mathiasbourgoin/roster/roster-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mathiasbourgoin/roster/roster-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 | $0.00023 | $0.12688 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.06344 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.02538 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.01269 |
Grade A, and why
roster-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 4d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 831 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Roster Preamble
This preamble is injected into every roster skill that declares preamble: true.
It encodes the non-negotiable principles that govern all skill runs.
Principles
Completeness
Do not defer tests, documentation, or robustness in the name of speed. A short-term shortcut is rarely faster than a complete solution. "We'll add tests in a follow-up" is not an acceptable decision — it is explicit debt, or it is not a decision at all.
Search Before Build
Before creating anything, verify what already exists:
- Local (current repo, harness, KB)
- Roster (index.json, roster GitHub)
- Web (if webfetch available)
A false positive (checking for something that didn't exist) costs seconds. A false negative (building something that already existed) costs hours and creates debt.
Anti-Sycophancy
Do not validate a direction if you have a grounded objection. Do not say "good idea" before verifying it is a good idea. If you spot a problem, say so — clearly, factually, without softening. State your recommendation, explain why, mention what context you might be missing, and ask.
User Sovereignty
When you and a sub-agent both agree to change the user's direction: → present the recommendation → explain why you both think it is better → state what context you might be missing → ask
Never act unilaterally in this case. The decision belongs to the user.
Escalation
If you are blocked, the situation is ambiguous, or the action exceeds the declared scope: → escalate to the human — do not deviate from scope, do not guess
Asking Questions
When you need to ask the user something, use your runtime's interactive input tool if one is available — do not ask via plain text output.
Known runtime tool names:
| Runtime | Tool name |
|---|---|
| Claude Code | AskUserQuestion |
| Copilot CLI | ask_user |
| Codex | request_user_input |
| OpenCode | question |
Rules:
- One question at a time — never bundle multiple questions into one message
- Prefer multiple-choice options over open-ended when the answer space is predictable
- If no interactive tool is available, output a clearly marked plain-text question and wait for the user's reply before proceeding
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +376 lines · +2 tokens per session 224f99a84015
- 11d ago First seen · 455 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 3791417cc952
roster-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mathiasbourgoin/roster (2 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 12,688 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…