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 MIK-HEAL/SyncPoint --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MIK-HEAL/SyncPointWrote 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/mik-heal/syncpoint/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mik-heal/syncpoint/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mik-heal/syncpoint/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/mik-heal/syncpoint/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mik-heal/syncpoint/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 | $0.00034 | $0.00334 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00134 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00067 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00033 |
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 7d 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.
What it actually says
Checkpoint Review
Step 1: Create Review
Create a review request from a session:
syncpoint session review --session <sessionId> --task <taskId> --reviewer <agentId>
Step 2: Add Checklist Items
syncpoint review checklist-add --review <reviewId> --title "All tests pass"
syncpoint review checklist-add --review <reviewId> --title "No security regressions"
syncpoint review checklist-list --review <reviewId>
Step 3: Submit Evidence
syncpoint review evidence-add --review <reviewId> --kind note --title "Evidence" --content "evidence text"
syncpoint review evidence-list --review <reviewId>
Step 4: Evaluate
syncpoint review checklist-pass --item <checklistItemId> --notes "why"
syncpoint review checklist-fail --item <checklistItemId> --notes "why"
Step 5: Decision
syncpoint review approve --review <reviewId> --summary "Approved"
syncpoint review block --review <reviewId> --summary "Blocking issues"
syncpoint review changes-request --review <reviewId> --summary "What to fix"
Verification
syncpoint review gate <reviewId>
syncpoint review packet <reviewId>
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.
- 7d ago Changed · +2 lines 24f58c08e95d
- 1mo ago First seen · 48 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A f7638ff44b8f
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository MIK-HEAL/SyncPoint (6 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 334 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-harness
Use when reviewing implementation work that ran through a /tmp Pi task harness. Checks contract drift, unsafe shortcuts, validation evidence, and status honesty.
ponytail-review
Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we delete", "is this…
ponytail-audit
Whole-repo audit for over-engineering. Like ponytail-review, but scans the entire codebase instead of a diff: a ranked list of what to delete, simplify, or replace with stdlib/native equivalents. Use when the user says "audit this codebase", "audit for over-engineering", "what can I delete from this repo", "find…
omk-code-review
Review implementation changes against contracts and real failure modes, preserve minimal patches, and verify regressions without confusing test counts, generated code volume or CI claims with production correctness.
code-review-typescript
Deep TypeScript-specific code review covering type safety, ESM/CJS, async correctness, money precision, and domain modeling. Applied in addition to the generic code-review skill when TypeScript/JavaScript code is detected. Invoked when reviewing TS/JS PRs, TypeScript changes, or performing TypeScript-specific quality…
triage-contributor-pr
Triage open pull requests from external contributors to prisma/orm and produce a per-PR verdict with evidence. Use when a maintainer asks to triage, evaluate, assess, or review the queue of incoming contributor PRs, to decide whether a fork PR is safe to run CI on, to check whether a PR is in scope for its version…