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 nirelbaz/promptpit --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nirelbaz/promptpitWrote 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/nirelbaz/promptpit/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nirelbaz/promptpit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nirelbaz/promptpit/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/nirelbaz/promptpit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nirelbaz/promptpit/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 | $0.00039 | $0.00325 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00130 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00065 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00032 |
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 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
Review
Review your own changes before pushing. Catch the things you'd be embarrassed about in a PR review.
Process
- Run
git diff(unstaged) andgit diff --cached(staged) to see all changes - Check each file against the checklist below
- Report findings grouped by severity: must-fix, should-fix, nit
Checklist
Must-fix (block the push)
- Leftover debug code: console.log, debugger, print statements, TODO comments related to the current change
- Hardcoded secrets, API keys, passwords, or connection strings
- Obvious bugs: wrong variable name, inverted condition, missing return
- Broken imports or references to deleted code
Should-fix (fix before PR review)
- Missing error handling on I/O operations (file reads, API calls, database queries)
- New code without tests
- Functions longer than 40 lines
- Duplicated logic that should be extracted
- Unclear variable or function names
Nit (note but don't block)
- Inconsistent formatting with surrounding code
- Comments that state the obvious
- Unused imports or variables
Output
For each finding, show: file, line, severity, what's wrong, and a suggested fix. If everything looks clean, say so.
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 · 40 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 9f80036b051f
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository nirelbaz/promptpit (6 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 325 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
git
Git and code hosting platform management — GitHub, GitLab, Codeberg, Forgejo. Zero barrier — install x-cmd and manage repos from the terminal. Use for "git", "github", "gitlab", "repo", "pull request", "code hosting".
doris-repo-review
Review an Apache Doris PR from a local clone with the same multi-agent, shared-ledger convergence workflow as the CI Code Review Runner. Use when the user supplies a PR to /doris-repo-review, asks to review a Doris PR locally, or asks for the CI-style review flow. Safely align only the current worktree to the exact PR…
review-local-changes
Review your local uncommitted working-tree changes (git diff plus untracked files) and return actionable improvement suggestions. Use before committing, when nothing has been pushed yet.
attach-review-to-pr
Add line-specific review comments to pull requests using GitHub CLI API.
resolve-fixed-pr-comments
Verify what PR review comments have been addressed (committed/pushed OR uncommitted local changes) and resolve the threads that are genuinely fixed or no longer relevant.
review-pr
Review an existing GitHub pull request and post inline review comments on its diff. Use when the changes are on an opened PR rather than your local working tree.