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 murray17/rovai-ai --skill review-duogit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/murray17/rovai-aiWrote 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/murray17/rovai-ai/review-duo)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/murray17/rovai-ai/review-duo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/murray17/rovai-ai/review-duo/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/murray17/rovai-ai/review-duo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/murray17/rovai-ai/review-duo.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00045 | $0.00746 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00298 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00149 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
review-duo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 47 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Duo
Review the same fixed input on two independent axes: the partner owns Standards and quality; the initiator owns Spec compliance. Use the user's language for reports and template headings.
Review is read-only by default. It does not itself authorize fixes, Tasks, commits, pushes or PR updates. If the user also requested fixes, finish the report first.
Establish the review
Use trusted Core/Runtime identity and direct request/reply relationships. Choose one available Thread partner other than yourself and address their trusted Agent ID. Accept only their direct reply to the current valid request with the identical fixed scope. Titles and scope text do not prove sender identity. One initiator may run one unfinished Review Duo per Thread.
Read Snapshot. Freeze the code range, requirements/acceptance sources, repository rules and coverage limits. Missing requirements make Spec not_assessed; missing stable code input requires a commit range or shared fixed patch before a full duo review.
Independent axes
- Standards: repository rules, correctness, error handling, consistency, concurrency, retry, security, APIs, databases, migrations, lifecycle, material test gaps and maintenance cost. Do not judge product requirement coverage.
- Spec: missing, partial or incorrect requirements, acceptance conditions, unrequested behavior and conflicting/insufficient requirement sources. Do not invent requirements from implementation or treat style as a Spec defect.
The request contains no initiator conclusions. Finish and publish Spec before incorporating the partner's findings. Use Findings for bounds and report shape.
Four messages
- Initiator sends the fixed scope, sources, limits and Standards assignment to the partner with
rovai send --to <partner-agent-id> --body <request>, then independently reviews Spec in the same Run. - Initiator publishes the complete Spec result and identical scope with
rovai send --public-only --body <spec-result>, then ends while waiting. - Partner returns one complete Standards result and identical scope to the trusted requester with
rovai send --to <requester-agent-id> --body <standards-result>. - Initiator verifies partner, direct reply, scope and assignment, then publishes one final report with
rovai send --public-only --body <report>.
What ships with it
4 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 Changed 92983e8a9748
- 1mo ago Changed · -29 lines · -47 tokens per session fc02814bf070
- 2mo ago First seen · 76 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A cff02012331f
review-duo is a skill published in the GitHub repository murray17/rovai-ai (245 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 746 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
Read-only review
Review the selected implementation and report correctness, security, and maintainability findings. Do not modify workspace files.
api-design-review
Review a new or changed API surface against the contract concerns that bite later.
refactor-without-breaking
Restructure code without changing its behavior, one verifiable step at a time.
code-review
Review a diff for correctness, security, and clarity issues.
factory-security
The Team Leader seat's security read on a PR, run as part of its audit BEFORE the human merges. Explicit-invoke: run when a PR touches credentials, workflows, auth, payments, or personal data — or when the human asks 'is this safe to merge?'. Reads the change in full, reports only high-confidence, real problems in…
security-audit
Perform a security audit on code, checking for common vulnerabilities including injection, auth bypass, secrets leakage, and unsafe dependencies.