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 me-cedric/agent-compass --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/me-cedric/agent-compassWrote 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/me-cedric/agent-compass/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/me-cedric/agent-compass/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/me-cedric/agent-compass/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/me-cedric/agent-compass/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/me-cedric/agent-compass/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 | $0.00042 | $0.01480 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00592 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00296 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00148 |
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 9d 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 — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
review
Report correctness defects and requirement gaps only. Skip style preferences.
- Spec axis: does the change do what the spec, issue or ticket asks?
- Standards axis: does the change follow the repository rules (
AGENTS.md, module docs, lint config)?
Forge
Use the CLI of the origin remote: gh for GitHub, glab for GitLab (also a self-hosted GitLab). Never a forge MCP for these calls.
| Step | GitHub | GitLab |
|---|---|---|
| Metadata | gh pr view <n> --json title,body,author,baseRefName,headRefName,headRefOid,labels |
glab mr view <iid> -F json |
| Head and base | gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<n> (.base.sha, .head.sha) |
glab api "projects/:id/merge_requests/<iid>" (.diff_refs) |
| Diff | gh pr diff <n> |
git diff <base_sha> <head_sha> |
| Threads | gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/<n>/comments |
glab api "projects/:id/merge_requests/<iid>/discussions" |
| Other open requests | gh pr list |
glab mr list |
Steps
- Fix the scope. For PR/MR N, review the head SHA that the forge reports, not a local branch. For a branch, ask for the base when it is missing.
- Freeze the acceptance criteria before you read the diff: the ticket (see
task-flow), the specs in{{OPENSPEC_DIR}}, the PR or MR text. If there is no source, ask. Do not invent criteria. - Read each reference at the base commit:
git show '<base>:<path>'. A change that edits its own spec cannot judge itself. - Read the existing threads. Check for commits pushed after the request opened: late commits are often unannounced scope.
- Start the
revieweragent in a fresh context. Give it the base, the head, the criteria, the standards sources and the style contract. Do not give it your reasoning. - Open the cited
path:lineof each finding before you accept it. A finding is a claim. - Write the report. See references/report.md.
For your own change, fix the real findings, run the checks again and ask reviewer again. Do at most 2 fix rounds.
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 9d ago Changed · +10 lines · -2 tokens per session 555d4fcb0838
- 10d ago First seen · 86 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 69a876a7b9be
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository me-cedric/agent-compass (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,480 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 2026-10-18.
Other skills, from other repositories
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
agent-swarm-pr
Agent skill for swarm-pr - invoke with $agent-swarm-pr.
agent-pr-manager
Agent skill for pr-manager - invoke with $agent-pr-manager.
github-automation
GitHub workflow automation, PR management, issue tracking, and code review coordination. Integrates with GitHub Actions and repository management. Use when: PR creation, code review, issue management, release automation, workflow setup. Skip when: local-only changes, non-GitHub repositories.
babysit
Watch an open PR — fix failing CI, handle the straightforward review comments, and drive it to a mergeable state. Claude Code analog of Cursor's built-in /babysit. Use after opening a PR when the user wants the agent to shepherd it without re-prompting.
make-pr-easy-to-review
Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".