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 NeuroGhostDev/booster_mcp --skill booster-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NeuroGhostDev/booster_mcpWrote 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/neuroghostdev/booster_mcp/booster-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/neuroghostdev/booster_mcp/booster-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/neuroghostdev/booster_mcp/booster-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/neuroghostdev/booster_mcp/booster-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/neuroghostdev/booster_mcp/booster-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 | $0.00023 | $0.00295 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00118 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00059 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00030 |
Grade A, and why
booster-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.
What it actually says
booster Review
Цель
Найти реальные риски, а не просто стилистические замечания.
Алгоритм
git_diff("<path>")
git_intelligence(path="<path>", limit=5)
project_memory_recall(query="review <path>")
read_with_context("<file>", line=1, context=200)
find_symbol("<main changed symbol>")
impact_analysis(target="<main changed symbol>", max_depth=3)
call_graph("<main changed symbol>")
import_graph("<file>")
external_deps(file="<file>")
collect_diagnostics(paths=["<file>"], include_security=true)
code_grep("TODO|FIXME|HACK|password|secret|eval|exec")
run_validation_checks(commands=["<tests>"], paths=["<file>"])
Проверяй явно
- инъекции
- секреты в коде
- нарушения слоёв
- ломаную обратную совместимость
- синхронный I/O на горячих путях
- новые или скрытые diagnostics
- security findings из bandit/semgrep/cargo audit, если инструменты доступны
Формат вывода
- критичные риски
- важные замечания
- остаточные риски и пробелы тестов
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 · 45 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 00e6216eed53
booster-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository NeuroGhostDev/booster_mcp (0 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 295 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
coding-assistant
Provides coding assistance with best practices and code review.
openspec-verify-change
Verify implementation matches OpenSpec change artifacts. Use when the user wants to validate that implementation is complete, correct, and coherent before archiving. Also use when the user says "openspec verify" or "opsx verify".
agent-watchdog
Use when asked to watch, babysit, audit, review, compare, or fix another agent's work from a Codex session ID, Claude Code session/transcript, chat/thread link, PR, branch, log, or pasted run summary. Monitor until the other agent is done or blocked, reconstruct what the user asked, independently investigate the same…
comet-verify
Comet Phase 4: Verify and Close. Invoke with /comet-verify. Verify implementation matches design, handle development branch.
review
Review code changes for security, performance, bugs, and quality. Reviews staged changes, unstaged changes, specific commits, or PR-ready diffs.
find-simplifications
Use when asked to find or plan Cherry Studio cleanup, simplification, refactoring, dead-code removal, duplicated state removal, unnecessary APIs, speculative generality, or library replacements, especially when the result should become evidence-backed proposed Agent Notes.