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 agentmods add skills/minusblindfold/devloop/reviewnpx skills add minusblindfold/devloop --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/minusblindfold/devloopWhat 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 | $0.00028 | $0.01100 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00550 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00220 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00110 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Execute each section in order. Copy the checklist and check off items as you complete them. Do not proceed past a Gate until verified.
Artifact: Write to .work/reviews/. Verify with ls before wrapping up.
Constraint: You MUST NOT modify project files. This skill produces a review artifact, not code changes.
Mode
Check .work/active/ for marker files. If exactly one exists and no $ARGUMENTS provided, auto-select that feature's slug. If multiple markers exist, list them, offer to archive any with date older than 30 days to .work/archive/, then ask. Arguments always override.
Parse $ARGUMENTS (or auto-selected slug): matches existing file in .work/reviews/ → re-entry. Matches plan + design → create (workflow mode). Set but no plan/design → create (standalone, using slug as context). Empty → detect branch; main: uncommitted only; otherwise: standalone using branch name.
You run in a forked context and cannot converse — when a choice is genuinely required (multiple current markers, ambiguous slug), stop and return the options to the caller instead of asking.
Task Progress:
- [ ] Determine mode (workflow / standalone / re-entry)
- [ ] If re-entry: read existing review, note prior findings
- [ ] Resolve rules (workflow: explicit from design specs; standalone: keyword from slug)
- [ ] Load implementation notes if present (workflow only)
- [ ] Load git diff (feature branch: main...HEAD + uncommitted; main: uncommitted only)
- [ ] Review diff against rules — cite rule, file, line for each finding
- [ ] Review diff for code quality and security issues
- [ ] Write artifact (create: new file; re-entry: append dated section)
- [ ] Gate: verify artifact with ls; update and archive active marker
- [ ] Wrap up: summarize findings, suggest fixes or confirm clean
Resolve rules and load context
Workflow mode: Read plan and design. Extract rule titles from task specs and apply the rules in devloop/rules/ whose H1 titles match. Read implementation notes matching slug — note intentional deviations (do not flag as violations).
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.
- yesterday First seen · 92 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A 865025df8f78
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository minusblindfold/devloop (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,100 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
bug-triage
Read all open bugs in production/qa/bugs/, re-evaluate priority vs. severity, assign to sprints, surface systemic trends, and produce a triage report. Run at sprint start or when the bug count grows enough to need re-prioritization.
bug-report
Creates a structured bug report from a description, or analyzes code to identify potential bugs. Ensures every bug report has full reproduction steps, severity assessment, and context.
security-audit
Java security checklist covering OWASP Top 10, input validation, injection prevention, and secure coding. Works with Spring, Quarkus, Jakarta EE, and plain Java. Use when reviewing code security, before releases, or when user asks about vulnerabilities.
solid-principles
SOLID principles checklist with Java examples. Use when a class has too many responsibilities, an abstraction leaks, or a dependency points the wrong way, and when the user asks about Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov, Interface Segregation or Dependency Inversion. For naming, duplication and method length…
issue-triage
Triage and categorize GitHub issues with priority labels. Use when user says "triage issues", "check issues", "review open issues", or during regular maintenance of GitHub issue backlog.
audit-onboarding-proposal
Independently audit a brownfield onboarding transcript, operational map, or exact proposed documentation patch before application. Use when a fresh reviewer must verify an $onboard-repository first pass, distinguish environment-caused Unknowns from reasoning defects, score its safety and evidence gates, or run a…