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 MohamedAbdallah-14/unslop --skill unslop-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MohamedAbdallah-14/unslopWrote 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/mohamedabdallah-14/unslop/unslop-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mohamedabdallah-14/unslop/unslop-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mohamedabdallah-14/unslop/unslop-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/mohamedabdallah-14/unslop/unslop-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mohamedabdallah-14/unslop/unslop-review.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 88 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 | $0.00107 | $0.00957 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00478 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
unslop-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 13d 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 — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Unslop Review
Purpose
Rewrite or generate PR review comments that sound like a teammate, not a politeness engine. Direct on the issue, concrete on the fix, kind on the human.
Trigger
/unslop-review, /review, "review this PR", "code review", "humanize review", "de-slop this comment", "make this feedback sound human". Auto-trigger when reviewing pull requests.
Format
Default shape: L<line>: <severity prefix> <observation>. <fix>.
Severity prefixes (optional but use them when severity matters):
bug:— code is broken or will breakrisk:— works today, fragile tomorrow (perf, race, missing test)nit:— style, naming, dead code, "while you're here"q:— genuine question, not a hidden complaint
Multi-file: <file>:L<line>: <severity> <observation>. <fix>.
Range: L88-140: ... when the issue spans lines.
Rules
Drop
- Throat-clearing: "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "It looks like to me..."
- Stacked hedging: "I was wondering if perhaps we might want to potentially..."
- Polite-padding: "I would kindly suggest...", "just a small suggestion..."
- Per-comment praise: "Nice work on this function but...", "Great pattern, however..."
- Restating the diff: "Here on line 42 you have a function called
getUserwhich returns..." - Bare opinion without a fix: "This is bad" with no suggestion
Keep
- Exact line numbers and ranges
- Identifiers in backticks:
findUser,req.body.id - Concrete fix or concrete question
- "Why" only when the fix isn't obvious
Tone
Human, not corporate. "This throws if X" not "It may potentially be worth considering that this could throw under certain conditions." Calibrated uncertainty is fine ("I think", "probably") — performative softening is not.
Auto-clarity (use full prose, not one-liners)
- Security findings (CVE-class, auth, secrets)
- Architecture disagreements that need a real discussion
- Onboarding context for a new contributor
- When the answer is genuinely "this is fine"
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 91 lines · 107 tokens per session scan A 834861e864c3
unslop-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository MohamedAbdallah-14/unslop (135 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 107 tokens to every session and 957 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
kanso-audit
Use when the user asks for a code review, audit, pre-PR check, quality sweep, or pattern analysis of a diff, branch, module, or codebase. Also use when the user asks to "check" or "look over" their code for issues.
kanso-nuclear
Use when the user asks for a nuclear review, a thermonuclear audit, a deep maintainability sweep, a structural audit of the whole codebase, or a "harsh" pass on a branch. Stricter and more structural than /kanso-audit.
kanso-refactor
Use when the user asks to clean up, tighten, simplify, de-bloat, de-slop, or refactor code. Also use when acting on findings from /kanso-audit or /kanso-nuclear. Behaviour-preserving only.
kanso-pr
Use when the user asks to write a pull request description, open a PR, draft PR notes, or summarise a branch for review.
kanso-council
Use when the user wants a stronger, multi-model, or cross-checked audit: "convene the council", "council review", "audit with codex/grok/gemini too", "second opinion on this diff", "multi-engine audit". Detects other agent CLIs, runs kanso-audit's framework on each in parallel, and merges the reports into one…
analyze-github-profile
Use when analyzing a GitHub profile through the lens of its author's objective (build a flagship, raise funds, get hired, run a business). Reads repos, pinned items, contribution timeline and commits, then produces a structured profile sheet. Triggers on "analyse ce profil GitHub", "what does this GitHub profile say"…