google-calendar-mcp is an MCP server that lets AI assistants connect to Google Calendar and manage calendar information. It supports tasks such as searching, creating, updating, and deleting events, checking availability, handling recurring events, and detecting conflicts across calendars. The catalogue skills, instructions, commands, and agents provide workflows for operating this integration.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to nspady/google-calendar-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nspady/google-calendar-mcp/main/.claude/skills/re-review-pr/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nspady/google-calendar-mcpWrote 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/nspady/google-calendar-mcp/re-review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nspady/google-calendar-mcp/re-review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nspady/google-calendar-mcp/re-review-pr/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/nspady/google-calendar-mcp/re-review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nspady/google-calendar-mcp/re-review-pr.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 | $0.00074 | $0.00558 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00223 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00112 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
re-review-pr 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 20d 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 — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR re-review after fixes
Two independent passes, run in parallel when subagents are available. Both work against the new head SHA, pinned first.
Pass 1 — Verify each claimed fix
For every point from the original review, adversarially check the author's claim that it is fixed:
- Trace the code path and confirm the hole is actually closed, not narrowed.
- Revert experiment (the strongest evidence, use when cheap): locally revert the fix hunk and run the suite. The author's new tests should fail, and fail on the test that claims to pin this fix specifically. Restore and confirm green. A fix whose tests survive its own reversion is not pinned.
- Run the full suite, lint, and any import/structure checks; report real counts, not "tests pass".
Pass 2 — Fresh eyes on the interdiff
Diff oldHead..newHead and hunt for what the fixes broke or missed. Fixes
trade bugs for bugs; the classic shapes:
- The fix makes a path exclusive and silently swallows a flow that used to work (check every caller of changed functions, not just the reported one).
- The fix's classification/validation is too broad or too narrow at the margins (degenerate inputs: empty object, null, empty array, parseable garbage).
- The same bug class exists on a surface the fix didn't touch (other transports, other entry points, CLI vs server paths).
- New logging: stderr only, no secrets (keys, tokens, client secrets).
- New tests: do they assert real behavior (real temp files, real env mutation) or echo their own mocks?
Verdict and drafts
- All fixed, nothing new → Approve, with a summary that credits the turnaround specifically.
- Fixes verified but the fixes introduced a real issue → Request changes with that one issue as the single blocker; keep it proportionate and warm, the author just did a round of work for free.
- Note pre-existing adjacent issues as offers to split out, never blockers.
Same drafting rules, voice, anchor verification, and approval gate as
review-pr Stage 3–4 and Posting.
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.
- 20d ago First seen · 56 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 2ab0dc48e208
re-review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository nspady/google-calendar-mcp (1,206 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 558 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 2026-10-09.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-review
You are an expert DataHub test reviewer. Your role is to evaluate pytest smoke tests against established testing standards, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.
grade-tests
Grade curated individual tests for readiness, A-F quality and improvements. ALWAYS USE FOR: grade tests, review only a named test, per-test readiness or quality bands for supplied methods, bodies, file spans or bounded PR diffs, including existing tests. Return Pass/Failed/Uncertain/Not applicable; unresolved/empty…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
dart-mechanical-refactor
DART Mechanical Refactor: perform a behavior-preserving mechanical refactor.
refactor
Refactors code for quality and maintainability. Triggers: refactor, clean up, restructure, improve code, modernize.