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 msradam/theodosia --skill differential-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/msradam/theodosiaWrote 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/msradam/theodosia/differential-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/msradam/theodosia/differential-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/msradam/theodosia/differential-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/msradam/theodosia/differential-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/msradam/theodosia/differential-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 | $0.00061 | $0.01664 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00666 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00333 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00166 |
Grade A, and why
differential-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 1mo 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
92% identical to differential-review — 25 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 — 229 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Differential Security Review
Security-focused code review for PRs, commits, and diffs.
Core Principles
- Risk-First: Focus on auth, crypto, value transfer, external calls
- Evidence-Based: Every finding backed by git history, line numbers, attack scenarios
- Adaptive: Scale to codebase size (SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE)
- Honest: Explicitly state coverage limits and confidence level
- Output-Driven: Always generate comprehensive markdown report file
Rationalizations (Do Not Skip)
| Rationalization | Why It's Wrong | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| "Small PR, quick review" | Heartbleed was 2 lines | Classify by RISK, not size |
| "I know this codebase" | Familiarity breeds blind spots | Build explicit baseline context |
| "Git history takes too long" | History reveals regressions | Never skip Phase 1 |
| "Blast radius is obvious" | You'll miss transitive callers | Calculate quantitatively |
| "No tests = not my problem" | Missing tests = elevated risk rating | Flag in report, elevate severity |
| "Just a refactor, no security impact" | Refactors break invariants | Analyze as HIGH until proven LOW |
| "I'll explain verbally" | No artifact = findings lost | Always write report |
Quick Reference
Codebase Size Strategy
| Codebase Size | Strategy | Approach |
|---|---|---|
| SMALL (<20 files) | DEEP | Read all deps, full git blame |
| MEDIUM (20-200) | FOCUSED | 1-hop deps, priority files |
| LARGE (200+) | SURGICAL | Critical paths only |
Risk Level Triggers
| Risk Level | Triggers |
|---|---|
| HIGH | Auth, crypto, external calls, value transfer, validation removal |
| MEDIUM | Business logic, state changes, new public APIs |
| LOW | Comments, tests, UI, logging |
Workflow Overview
Pre-Analysis → Phase 0: Triage → Phase 1: Code Analysis → Phase 2: Test Coverage
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Phase 3: Blast Radius → Phase 4: Deep Context → Phase 5: Adversarial → Phase 6: Report
What ships with it
5 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 229 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 1499d68ed446
differential-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository msradam/theodosia (16 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 1,664 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to differential-review, differing in 25 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review code for quality, maintainability, and correctness.
reviewing-update-sets
Reviewing, analyzing, and comparing ServiceNow update sets before promotion, singly or in batches. Shows changes, risks, dependencies, and conflicts. Use when the user mentions update sets, customizations, promotion, code review, change tracking, pre-deployment review, sysupdatexml, customer updates, 'what changed in…
dos-verify-done-claims
Before accepting an agent's 'done / shipped / fixed' claim, verify it against ground truth (git ancestry + the commit's own diff) using the DOS kernel's dos verify and dos commit-audit — never the agent's own narration.
code-quality
Drive static-analysis code quality in pi-agent-dashboard with Biome (analyze → fix → test), in changed-files or whole-repo mode. Use when asked to "improve code quality", "lint and fix", "clean up warnings", "fix Biome issues", "run static analysis", or when setting a code-quality goal. Skip for one-line edits.
ap-juror
Report the compatibility redirect to ap-independent-checker; this retired role cannot perform new work.
security-review
Security vulnerability assessment identifying OWASP risks, injection vectors, authentication issues, and data exposure with severity classification.