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 mhrsdev/AI-Agent-Skills-Library --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mhrsdev/AI-Agent-Skills-LibraryWrote 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/mhrsdev/ai-agent-skills-library/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mhrsdev/ai-agent-skills-library/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhrsdev/ai-agent-skills-library/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/mhrsdev/ai-agent-skills-library/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhrsdev/ai-agent-skills-library/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 | $0.00932 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00466 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00093 |
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 10d 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 — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
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. If they didn't specify one, ask for 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.
Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.
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, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.
4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel
Send a single message with two Agent tool calls. Use the general-purpose subagent for both.
Standards sub-agent prompt — include:
- The full diff command and commit list.
- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3.
- The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — every place the diff violates a documented standard. Cite the standard (file + the rule). Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls. Skip anything tooling enforces. Under 400 words."
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 70 lines · 95 tokens per session scan A 0f1c3edf07b7
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mhrsdev/AI-Agent-Skills-Library (6 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 932 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 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
improve-codebase-architecture
Avaliar a arquitetura de um codigo existente, encontrar friccoes comprovaveis, gerar obrigatoriamente um relatorio HTML e propor refatoracoes incrementais com impacto tecnico e de produto. Usar quando o usuario pedir melhoria arquitetural, crescimento sustentavel, reducao de acoplamento, modulos mais testaveis ou um…
code-review
Run a comprehensive code review.
skill-scope-control
Analisa se alterações, diffs e PRs continuam alinhados ao objetivo declarado, identificando escopo extra e propondo manter, separar ou justificar.
breaking-change-detector
Detect and warn about breaking API/schema changes before implementation. Auto-trigger when modifying API routes, database schemas, or public interfaces. Validates changes against api-strategy.md versioning rules. Suggests migration paths for breaking changes. Prevents removing endpoints, changing request/response…
multi-agent-voting
Execute multi-agent voting for critical decisions using MAKER-style first-to-ahead-by-k error correction.
lead-review
Autonomous comprehensive review. Once-through pipeline over /review-health, /review-arch, /review-security, /review-perf, /review-a11y, /review-test, /review-release. Operator-configurable ticket creation at startup — when ON, auto-approves sub-skill ticket proposals per the orchestrator-family contract; when OFF…