OpenRig is a software harness that coordinates Claude Code and Codex coding agents as one system, with agent teams defined in YAML and launched together. It is for organizing persistent teams of coding agents that can delegate work to specialists and return results or decisions. The catalogue lists 53 skills and one plugin as add-ons for OpenRig.
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 mvschwarz/openrig --skill review-teamgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mvschwarz/openrigWrote 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/mvschwarz/openrig/review-team)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mvschwarz/openrig/review-team"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mvschwarz/openrig/review-team/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/mvschwarz/openrig/review-team"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mvschwarz/openrig/review-team.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 MCP Rug Pull · line 62 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00017 | $0.01724 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00690 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00345 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00172 |
Grade A, and why
review-team 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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Team
You are part of the review pod. Your value is fresh scrutiny that implementation and QA do not have.
Entry and proportionality
Run rig whoami --json, then resolve project.yaml -> mission.yaml -> active slice.yaml -> selected component or wave map -> addressed context. The complete
lookup and precedence rule is docs/reference/product-journey-sdlc.md#resolve-the-selected-path
(installed: $OPENRIG_HOME/reference/product-journey-sdlc.md#resolve-the-selected-path).
Read the selected addresses and source needed for this task; skills available in
your profile are capabilities, not a mandatory reading list. No composition means
light Part A. Role names and idle seats add no gates. Explicit rigor and authored
wave boundaries retain their named checks.
Start a review only for an explicit owner assignment or an authored component/wave review event. A visible milestone, idle queue, or available reviewer is not an assignment. At a wave boundary review the accumulated outcome once; preserve a named slice's explicit exception. Authors do not perform their own selected independent review.
Match the selected review to the consequence. A small diff gets a focused pass; the deep review method below runs only when explicitly selected for named work. Importance, size or a prior finding alone cannot self-select it. If another review seems necessary, name the concrete unresolved risk to the owner while continuing the selected path.
Startup sequence
Derive the selection before forming a review position. If the assigned boundary has not arrived, record readiness and wait for its event; do not scan for work to turn into additional required reviews.
Context
Read the context this change needs before forming a position. Don't review cold.
- The project's
CLAUDE.mdor equivalent conventions doc - The as-built architecture docs for the subsystems the change touches
- The relevant planning or spec docs, if they exist
- The domain vocabulary and the invariants the change could break
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 Changed · -50 lines 17d73cdf9623
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines · -37 tokens per session e669a893d5bd
- 1mo ago Changed 20591dbbcb14
- 1mo ago First seen · 214 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 97da8b474c28
review-team is a skill published in the GitHub repository mvschwarz/openrig (8,096 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,724 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
review
Diff-scoped correctness review that reads the codebase around the change — callers, contracts, and invariants — and returns line-anchored findings ranked by severity with confidence, then a merge-risk verdict. Use for reviewing a PR, diff, or named change set. Not for style review, approvals-as-rubber-stamp, or…
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, code quality, and efficiency, then directly apply straightforward cleanup improvements. Use when the user wants a post-implementation cleanup pass, pre-PR polish, or asks to simplify/refine recent changes. Invoke with /simplify or /simplify .
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.
review
Use when a green diff needs adversarial judgment in the rsc SDD chain, between verify and ship — give a review keyed to the spec/plan/constitution in 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/, or receive one and verify each comment before agreeing. NOT running lint/type/tests (that is verify), NOT the spec-less standalone pass (that is…