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 mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLIC --skill orch-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLICWrote 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/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/orch-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/orch-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/orch-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/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/orch-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/orch-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 | $0.00013 | $0.00788 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00394 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00158 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
orch-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 8d 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 — 145 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Orchestration Review
Purpose
Trigger the code review workflow, checking for risk triggers and routing to the appropriate reviewer based on change type.
Invocation
orch-review [target]
Arguments
| Argument | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| target | No | Branch, PR number, or commit SHA to review |
Default: Reviews current branch against main.
Workflow
1. Context Load
Read the following (if available):
- Risk trigger definitions
- Reviewer routing map
- Review protocol / checklist
2. Change Analysis
Analyze the diff to identify:
- Files Changed: List of modified files
- Change Type: Feature, bugfix, refactor, config, docs
- Lines Changed: Addition/deletion counts
- Risk Triggers: Match against known risk patterns
3. Risk Trigger Detection
Check for triggers requiring elevated review:
| Trigger | Pattern | Review Level |
|---|---|---|
| Security | auth, crypto, secrets, permissions | Senior + Security |
| Schema | migrations, models, database | Senior + DBA |
| API | endpoints, contracts, breaking changes | Senior + API Owner |
| CI/CD | workflows, deployment, infrastructure | Senior + DevOps |
| Large Refactor | >500 lines or >10 files | Senior |
4. Reviewer Routing
Route to appropriate reviewer:
- Standard changes: Route to available reviewer
- Risk-triggered changes: Route to specialized reviewer + senior
- Two-layer review: Apply if change matches elevated criteria
5. Review Execution
Apply review checklist:
- Code quality and style
- Test coverage
- Security considerations
- Performance implications
- Documentation updates
- Breaking change assessment
6. Capture Review Outcome
Produce a structured review record:
## Review: [target] - [YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM]
**Reviewer**: [reviewer role/id]
**Review Type**: [standard | risk-triggered]
**Risk Triggers**: [none | list]
### Summary
[Brief summary of changes reviewed]
### Files Reviewed
| File | Status | Notes |
|------|--------|-------|
| [path] | [approved|needs-work|blocked] | [note] |
### Findings
#### Issues (Must Fix)
- [ ] [issue description and location]
#### Suggestions (Consider)
- [ ] [suggestion description]
#### Observations
- [observation]
### Verdict
**Status**: [APPROVED | NEEDS_WORK | BLOCKED]
**Conditions**: [any conditions for approval]
### Follow-up Actions
- [ ] [action required before merge]
---
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 145 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 1b00c0bab711
orch-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLIC (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 788 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
chimera
Use this skill for post-session code quality review of files added or modified during a WrongStack session. It runs automatically when a session ends, and on demand. Trigger on the explicit vocabulary — "review", "code review", "quality check", "post-session review", "chimeric review", "chimera" — and on the task…
auto-review
Use this skill to configure and understand the built-in auto-review plugin (wstack-auto-review) that fires automated code review subagents on every code change during a session. Triggers: user says "auto review", "otomatik review", "auto code review", "her değişiklikte review", "/auto-review".
reviewing-changes
Use when a review package asks you to review a plan step's change set (todo.startReview): you are the REVIEWER, not the author. How to judge an agent-written diff, file findings with addreviewcomment, and settle with exactly one reviewverdict.
reflecting-findings
Use when a reflection package hands you another agent's review findings to verify (before they become a fix request): you are the REFLECTOR, an independent skeptic. Judge each finding against the real code and settle it with reflectfinding — kept or refuted.
verify
Answer "is this shippable / done?" with evidence before a commit or PR — fires on "verify", "is this done", "ready to ship?", pre-commit or pre-PR. Part of the Agentsmith harness; runs the project's verify phases and never claims "passing" without showing the output (R5).
review
Review Playwright tests for quality. Use when user says "review tests", "check test quality", "audit tests", "improve tests", "test code review", or "playwright best practices check".