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 Nolane-x/forge-os --skill enforcing-review-separationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Nolane-x/forge-osWrote 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/nolane-x/forge-os/enforcing-review-separation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nolane-x/forge-os/enforcing-review-separation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nolane-x/forge-os/enforcing-review-separation/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/nolane-x/forge-os/enforcing-review-separation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nolane-x/forge-os/enforcing-review-separation.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 | $0.00034 | $0.00183 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00092 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00037 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00018 |
Grade A, and why
enforcing-review-separation 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 9d 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
Enforcing Review Separation
Core principle
Resolve producer, resolver, evaluator, closer, and signer trust domains. Bind the authorized reviewer and evidence set to the reviewed subject. The runtime owns deterministic scope, coverage, policy, and evidence checks; the agent owns only the judgment that cannot be reduced safely to code.
Do not activate when
- A0 prototype policy explicitly permits self-review
- the action is a reversible draft with no assurance claim
What ships with it
9 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 23 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 093e2e83c09a
enforcing-review-separation is a skill published in the GitHub repository Nolane-x/forge-os (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 183 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
code-review
AI code review for PR or local changes.
change-review
Validate CRM/PM changes before PR.
code-review-quality
Conduct context-driven code reviews focusing on quality, testability, and maintainability. Use when reviewing code, providing feedback, or establishing review practices.
audit-code
Run a two-pass, multidisciplinary code audit led by a tie-breaker lead, combining security, performance, UX, DX, and edge-case analysis into one prioritized report with concrete fixes. Use when the user asks to audit code, perform a deep review, stress-test a codebase, or produce a risk-ranked remediation plan across…
code-review
The depth half of a review - the dimensions a diff is read against (correctness, boundaries, concurrency, failure paths, secrets, data access, structure, test quality) and the rule that a finding is refuted before it is reported. The verdict stays with the reviewer agent. Use when reviewing a diff or a pull request…
collaboration
Guide for collaborating on GitHub projects. This skill should be used when contributing to projects, creating PRs, reviewing code, or managing issues on GitHub.