Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to membrane/api-gateway. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/membrane/api-gateway/master/.claude/skills/review-branch/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/membrane/api-gatewayWrote 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/membrane/api-gateway/review-branch)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/membrane/api-gateway/review-branch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/membrane/api-gateway/review-branch/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/membrane/api-gateway/review-branch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/membrane/api-gateway/review-branch.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 73 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00125 | $0.01919 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00050 | $0.00768 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00384 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00192 |
Grade A, and why
review-branch scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 143 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Branch
Review everything that changed on the current branch relative to master and report what
needs attention before the branch is merged. The goal is a review a senior engineer on this
project would give: focused on real problems, grounded in the actual code, and ranked so the
author knows what to fix first.
Scope of the review
Review committed changes on the branch plus any uncommitted working-tree changes, all
relative to the merge-base with master. Concretely:
BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD master)
git diff --stat $BASE # committed + uncommitted, names only
git diff $BASE # the full diff to review
git diff $BASE (no --cached, no second ref) compares the working tree against the
merge-base, so it already includes both committed and uncommitted changes — which is exactly
the scope we want. Don't review changes that are also on master; the merge-base keeps those
out.
Untracked (newly created, not yet git add-ed) files are out of scope — git diff does
not show them. This is deliberate: review what's in version control. If the author wants a brand
new file reviewed, they should git add it first. If git status --porcelain shows untracked
files that look relevant to the change, mention them in one line so the author can stage them and
re-run — but don't review their contents.
If the branch is master, or there is no diff, say so and stop — there is nothing to review.
How to work
Review in four passes. Don't just walk the diff top to bottom — read enough of the surrounding code to understand what the change is for, then judge it. A diff hunk that looks fine in isolation can be a regression once you see its callers.
- Understand the change. Read the diff and the commit messages (
git log --oneline $BASE..HEAD). What is this branch trying to do? Hold that intent in mind — most findings are "this doesn't actually achieve the intent" or "this achieves it but breaks something else".
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 143 lines · 125 tokens per session scan A 733f6e18f3a0
review-branch is a skill published in the GitHub repository membrane/api-gateway (656 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 125 tokens to every session and 1,919 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-threshold
Track commit accumulation and trigger PR when thresholds crossed.
fastapi-expert
Expert-level FastAPI development for high-performance Python APIs with async support. Use when the user mentions Python, API, async, REST, OpenAPI, or Pydantic, or when the task involves FastAPI Features.
openapi-expert
Expert-level OpenAPI/Swagger specification for API design, documentation, and code generation. Use when the user mentions swagger, API specs, REST, API design, or documentation, or when the task involves OpenAPI Specification, Webhooks, or Polymorphism.
construtor-de-api
Construção e documentação de APIs REST e GraphQL: design de endpoints, versionamento, autenticação, tratamento de erros, documentação OpenAPI 3.0 e boas práticas de segurança e performance.
gitlab-merge-request-review
Review and merge GitLab merge requests via the gitlab-api MCP server — by default the MRs assigned to you or where you are a reviewer, optionally scoped to a project, group, or the whole instance. Read an MR, gate it on a green pipeline (pipeline → jobs → job log), then approve, accept/merge, or set…
OpenAPI Contract Completeness
Ensure OpenAPI specs define consistent request/response schemas, error model, auth, pagination, and backward compatibility.