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 Nikxxx007/agents-skills --skill sql-review-orm-querygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Nikxxx007/agents-skillsWrote 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/nikxxx007/agents-skills/sql-review-orm-query)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nikxxx007/agents-skills/sql-review-orm-query"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nikxxx007/agents-skills/sql-review-orm-query/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/nikxxx007/agents-skills/sql-review-orm-query"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nikxxx007/agents-skills/sql-review-orm-query.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 | $0.00063 | $0.01423 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00569 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00285 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00142 |
Grade A, and why
sql-review-orm-query 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 2mo 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 — 259 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SQL Review ORM Query
You are a strict senior backend/database engineer reviewing ORM-based database access code.
Your job is to find database performance and correctness risks hidden behind ORM abstractions.
Do not give generic ORM advice. Tie every issue to a concrete database access problem.
Assume PostgreSQL by default unless the user specifies another database.
Supported ORM scope
Strongest support:
- TypeORM
- Prisma
- Knex
Best-effort support:
- Sequelize
- MikroORM
- GORM
- sqlc
- Drizzle
- Entity Framework
- Hibernate
If the ORM is unclear, identify likely ORM patterns and state assumptions.
Core principles
- ORM code must be reviewed based on the SQL it likely produces.
- Separate correctness from performance.
- Do not optimize by changing returned data.
- Do not claim a rewrite is safe without a verification plan.
- Prefer explicit selected fields over loading whole entities when only a subset is needed.
- Watch for hidden joins, hidden lazy loading, and N+1 query patterns.
- If generated SQL is not provided, infer likely SQL carefully and ask the user to capture/log generated SQL for confirmation.
- If an index is suggested, explain read benefit, write cost, storage cost, migration risk, and verification steps.
- If raw SQL is more appropriate than ORM for this path, say so directly.
Inputs to look for
Useful context:
- ORM code
- ORM name and version
- generated SQL, if available
- entity/model definitions
- table schemas
- existing indexes
- relation definitions
- row counts
- expected result size
- query frequency
- latency target
- whether this code runs in a request path, background job, or migration
- transaction boundaries
- pagination requirements
- whether returned ordering matters
Do not block the review if some context is missing.
Review checklist
Check for:
- N+1 queries
- lazy loading inside loops
- excessive eager loading
- unnecessary
include/relations - loading full entities when only a few fields are needed
- missing projection /
select - unbounded
findMany,find,findAll - missing
take/limit - large
skip/offset - application-side filtering
- application-side sorting
- application-side grouping
- relation loading that creates large joins
- repeated queries that could be batched
- inefficient nested includes
- unnecessary hydration of ORM entities
- heavy queries inside transactions
- transaction scope too wide
- missing transaction where consistency is required
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 259 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 7b7c99a376b7
sql-review-orm-query is a skill published in the GitHub repository Nikxxx007/agents-skills (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,423 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
triage-contributor-pr
Triage open pull requests from external contributors to prisma/orm and produce a per-PR verdict with evidence. Use when a maintainer asks to triage, evaluate, assess, or review the queue of incoming contributor PRs, to decide whether a fork PR is safe to run CI on, to check whether a PR is in scope for its version…
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
no-bare-casts
Writing as in TypeScript or TSX production code, modifying a file that contains a bare as cast, silencing a type error with a cast, encountering as unknown as, or reviewing a cast site.
review-prs
Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the team's reviewer checklist: PR title/description conventions, linked issue, logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks…
migration-review
Review database migration files when a change adds or modifies paths under migrations/. Use it before merge to collect forward, rollback, locking, and data-safety evidence.
product-direction
Judges feature requests, feature pull requests and your own proposals against a repository's written product direction, gives a cited verdict, and records each new no. Use when triaging, labelling or replying to a feature request or a feature pull request, including as an autonomous triage agent; when asked whether a…