winapp CLI is a command-line tool for Windows application development that manages SDKs, app identity, manifests, certificates, packaging, and build tools. It helps developers using frameworks such as .NET, Win32, CMake, Electron, or Rust access Windows-native development capabilities. The catalogue add-ons provide agent workflows for using the CLI.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to microsoft/winappCli. 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/microsoft/winappCli/main/.github/skills/pr-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/microsoft/winappCliWrote 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/microsoft/winappcli/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/microsoft/winappcli/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/microsoft/winappcli/pr-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/microsoft/winappcli/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/microsoft/winappcli/pr-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00166 | $0.02280 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00066 | $0.00912 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00456 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00228 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 15d 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 — 196 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the PR review orchestrator for microsoft/winappcli. Fan out
parallel reviewers, run the branch for real, and hand back a human-readable
decision with only the changes that actually matter.
Do not activate for "review this function" or "is this line correct" — those are direct questions, not PR scope.
1. Get the diff
Default to the branch: git --no-pager diff origin/main...HEAD. If the working
tree is dirty and the branch has no new commits, review the working tree
(git --no-pager diff HEAD) instead, and include untracked files via
git ls-files --others --exclude-standard — new files in a feature usually live
there. If both have substance, ask which the user wants. Honor an explicitly
named scope or base ref over any of this.
Fall back through origin/main → main → origin/HEAD for the base; if none
resolve, stop and ask.
Capture the file list (--stat) and the full unified diff. 0 files → say so
and stop. >50 files → warn and ask before proceeding.
Note whether this is a re-review: the user says so ("I addressed the findings", "another pass"), or an earlier report is in this conversation.
2. Fan out
Launch these in one response with the task tool, mode sync. Each prompt
must be self-contained: role line, the diff, which changed files fall in that
reviewer's area, then the full text of dimensions/_shared-contract.md and
dimensions/<name>.md. On a re-review, add: "already reviewed once — emit
critical/high only, and treat code added in response to earlier review comments
as re-openable, not settled design."
| Reviewer | File |
|---|---|
| security | dimensions/security.md |
| correctness & tests | dimensions/correctness-and-tests.md |
| cli-ux | dimensions/cli-ux.md |
| alternative-solution | dimensions/alternative-solution.md |
| ship-surfaces | dimensions/ship-surfaces.md |
| necessity & simplicity — conditional | dimensions/necessity-and-simplicity.md |
Necessity is conditional: run it when the diff adds user-facing surface, adds
new internal structure (service / interface / abstraction / config knob), or
this is a re-review. Skip it for small fixes, refactors, perf, docs, tests, and
CI on a first review. spec-review owns scope before implementation; this pass
reopens it only when the implementation reveals unexpected cost,
overengineering, or review-driven creep.
What ships with it
8 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.
- 15d ago Changed · +2 lines 2099495a5e3d
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines f069ca9936bd
- 2mo ago First seen · 192 lines · 166 tokens per session scan A a55d2389e363
pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository microsoft/winappCli (1,346 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 166 tokens to every session and 2,280 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
code-review
You are a senior code reviewer. You receive diffs via stdin.
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.
agent-debug-ci
Investigate failed scheduled or nightly GitHub Actions runs on the default branch, determine whether the failure is reproducible and repository-owned, implement the smallest evidence-backed fix, validate it, and open a pull request. Use when a failed nightly CI event starts an agent, or when the standard CI or…
audit-ci
Run and analyze Elements cold CI performance profiles and propose evidence-backed build, test, lint, and dependency-graph improvements. Use whenever asked to profile or benchmark pnpm run ci, rerun ci:profile, create a CI performance audit, compare CI timings, find bottlenecks or the completion path, investigate a CI…