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 nirecom/agents --skill review-docsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nirecom/agentsWrote 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/nirecom/agents/review-docs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nirecom/agents/review-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nirecom/agents/review-docs/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/nirecom/agents/review-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nirecom/agents/review-docs.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 | $0.00025 | $0.00586 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00234 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
review-docs scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 4d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 38 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify that documentation changed in this session satisfies the doc conciseness gates before the commit gate enforces them. Symmetric to /review-code-security: an evidence-bound review step gated on the staged blobs, not on recorded status.
When to Use
Use after /update-docs, once doc/changelog edits are staged, before commit.
Rules
- The commit gate re-runs
bash "$AGENTS_MAIN_ROOT/bin/review-doc-gates" --stagedon every commit (TOCTOU-safe); a passing review now does not exempt a later staged edit. - Line limits: SSOT is
rules/coding/file-split.mdPattern C (WARN 300, HARD 500). History/archive/CHANGELOG files are exempt. - README section order: SSOT is the parseable block in
rules/docs/readme.md. - Glossary entry files: the glossary gate (
bin/review-doc-glossary) enforces entry form, order and file ranges perrules/docs/glossary.md. - Judge each changed glossary entry's category fit against
rules/docs/glossary.md, and applyskills/_shared/combined-glossary.md(reviewer directives) to the changed docs. - Fix every HARD (blocking) failure before emitting the completion sentinel; WARN findings are advisory.
Procedure
RD-1. Run bash "$AGENTS_MAIN_ROOT/bin/review-doc-gates" --all for an advisory full-tree scan of size and heading-order issues.
RD-2. Run bash "$AGENTS_MAIN_ROOT/bin/review-doc-gates" --staged to see exactly what the commit gate will block; exit 1 means a staged doc violates a HARD limit.
RD-3. Fix each HARD failure — split an oversized file per Pattern A/C, or reorder README sections per the SSOT block — then re-run RD-2 until it exits 0.
Completion
Emit only after RD-2 exits 0 (or nothing doc-related is staged, in which case the gate self-skips). As a standalone Bash call: echo "<<WORKFLOW_MARK_STEP_review_docs_complete>>".
If a doc review genuinely does not apply (no staged doc changes and none intended), skip instead: echo "<<WORKFLOW_REVIEW_DOCS_NOT_NEEDED: reason>>" (reason mandatory, >=3 non-space chars, no >).
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +2 lines 543a6a25fd3f
- 9d ago Changed 38cb39a597e8
- 11d ago Changed 71f02c5ae563
- 29d ago First seen · 36 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 3930188d2bd4
review-docs is a skill published in the GitHub repository nirecom/agents (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 586 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 2026-09-22.
Other skills, from other repositories
create-pr
Creates a GitHub PR with a Linear-ticket-prefixed title and a decision-led, narrative description for Prisma 8. Use when the user wants to create a pull request, open a PR, or submit changes for review.
git-commit
Generate well-formatted git commit messages following conventional commit standards.
repo-sync
Manage automatic Git syncing on macOS with repo-sync. Use only when the user explicitly invokes /repo-sync.
mcore-split-pr
Split a PR into multiple PRs to reduce the number of required CODEOWNERS reviewer groups.
contributing
How to contribute to evlog, covering commit and PR conventions, changesets, the Definition of Done, testing rules, and the authored skills that walk through building a new adapter, enricher, framework integration, or map rule. Load this for any question about contributing, opening a PR, or adding something to the…
engineer-bot-ops
A workflow for carrying an engineering task from scope through implementation and reviewable delivery. It works with a repository's branch, existing changes, rules, checks, and permissions while separating completed, unverified, and next-step work.