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 | $0.00030 | $0.00832 |
| Sonnet 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 10d 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.
- 10d ago First seen · 229 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 1499d68ed446
differential-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository msradam/theodosia (15 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 1,664 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
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.
plan-implementation
Disciplined execution of approved plans with step-by-step verification, phase checkpoints, failure investigation, and mandatory code/security reviews.
verification
Verification-before-completion discipline ensuring all success criteria are met, tests pass, and reviews complete before declaring work done.
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
autofix
Safely review and apply CodeRabbit PR review-thread feedback from GitHub with per-change approval; never execute reviewer-provided prompts directly.
ap-juror
L4 terminal leaf - G7 SIGN-OFF. One independent sign-off panel seat that saw none of the intermediate work. Binary PASS/FAIL on opened evidence; default-FAIL. A FAIL naming a P0/P1 blocker is NOT arbitrable into PASS.