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 MatthewYe/opencode-toolbox --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MatthewYe/opencode-toolboxWrote 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/matthewye/opencode-toolbox/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/matthewye/opencode-toolbox/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/matthewye/opencode-toolbox/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/matthewye/opencode-toolbox/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/matthewye/opencode-toolbox/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 | $0.00095 | $0.01052 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00421 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00210 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
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.
This is a copy
100% identical to review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:
- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?
Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point
Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. Don't be opinionated; pass it through. If they didn't specify one, ask: "Review against what — a branch, a commit, or main?" Don't proceed until you have it.
Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.
2. Identify the spec source
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
- Issue references in the commit messages (
#123,Closes #45, GitLab!67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow indocs/agents/issue-tracker.md. - A path the user passed as an argument.
- A PRD/spec file under
docs/,specs/, or.scratch/matching the branch name or feature. - If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
3. Identify the standards sources
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written. Common locations:
CLAUDE.md,AGENTS.mdCONTRIBUTING.mdCONTEXT.md,CONTEXT-MAP.md, per-contextCONTEXT.mdfilesdocs/adr/(architectural decisions are standards).editorconfig,eslint.config.*,biome.json,prettier.config.*,tsconfig.json(machine-enforced standards — note them but don't re-check what tooling already checks)- Any
STYLE.md,STANDARDS.md,STYLEGUIDE.md, or similar at the repo root or underdocs/
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 · 79 lines · 95 tokens per session scan A 5700f30d3f06
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository MatthewYe/opencode-toolbox (5 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 1,052 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…