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 NimblePros/agent-skills --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NimblePros/agent-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/nimblepros/agent-skills/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nimblepros/agent-skills/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nimblepros/agent-skills/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/nimblepros/agent-skills/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nimblepros/agent-skills/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 | $0.00932 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00466 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
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 8d 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 — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Multi-agent code review that works on local diffs or open PRs.
Step 1: Determine the Review Target
If $ARGUMENTS contains a PR number, review that PR:
gh pr view {number} --json title,body,headRefName,baseRefName,labels,state
gh pr diff {number}
If no PR number, review the local diff against main:
git diff -w origin/main...HEAD
Step 2: Dispatch Parallel Review Agents
Launch each one as a background agent. Each agent gets the diff and reviews independently.
Agent: Bug Scan Shallow scan for obvious bugs in the changed code. Focus on logic errors, wrong file paths, incorrect commands, broken references. Ignore style issues, linting, and type errors (CI catches those). Only report issues a senior engineer would flag.
Agent: Git History Context Read git blame and history of modified files. Check for conflicts with recent changes, patterns from previous PRs, and whether the changes are consistent with the file's evolution.
Agent: Shared Code Impact For each modified file, check all callers and consumers. Flag if a shared file was changed without considering all code paths that use it. This is the #1 cause of errors that make it into production.
Agent: Project Convention Check Check CI-specific rules:
- Branch name matches
^[a-zA-Z0-9-]+\/(release|hotfix)$(if reviewing a PR) - PR title follows conventional commit format, under 65 chars
Agent: Security and Secrets Check
- Scan for hardcoded secrets, credentials, or sensitive information in the diff. Flag any findings with high confidence.
- Check for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities in the changed code, such as SQL injection, XSS, or insecure deserialization patterns.
- Ensure that any changes to authentication or authorization logic follow best practices and do not introduce security weaknesses.
- Flag any use of deprecated or insecure APIs that could lead to security issues.
- Run configured static analysis tools for security and report any findings that are relevant to the changed code.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 114 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 87341c3fa150
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository NimblePros/agent-skills (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 932 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…