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 nullhack/temple8 --skill review-implementationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nullhack/temple8Wrote 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/nullhack/temple8/review-implementation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nullhack/temple8/review-implementation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nullhack/temple8/review-implementation/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/nullhack/temple8/review-implementation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nullhack/temple8/review-implementation.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00316 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00126 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00063 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00032 |
Grade A, and why
review-implementation 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 Implementation
- Load [[software-craft/code-review]], [[software-craft/solid]], [[software-craft/smell-catalogue]], [[software-craft/design-patterns]] — review method, quality criteria, smell taxonomy, and the pattern catalog.
- Review the implemented source against its contract per [[software-craft/code-review]].
- Check impl-matches-contract: the .py satisfies its .pyi and the requirement, without excess.
- Check source-quality-clean: IF SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, Object Calisthenics are violated OR a smell is present THEN reject per [[software-craft/solid]], [[software-craft/smell-catalogue]].
- Check stubtest-clean: the source .py and its sibling .pyi agree, AND the target's test .py and its sibling .pyi agree — no drift on either pair.
- Check tests-green: the target's tests pass and no previously-green test regressed.
- Read the target's .pyi first; open the .py only for the spots under review.
- IF review reveals the contract itself is the problem — not the implementation — THEN append the finding to
.cache/<session_id>/journal.md(contract, the gap, the evidence) and firereveals-gap. This routes back to plan, not changes-needed.
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 · 16 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A b079fc2662ad
review-implementation is a skill published in the GitHub repository nullhack/temple8 (11 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 316 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
agentic-test-audit
Audit a pytest suite: surviving mutants and untested code, flaky, order-dependent and slow tests, and removal candidates checked on held-out mutants. Report-only.
agentic-verify
Check that a Python change is caught by tests: run every mutant of the changed lines and write tests until they catch them. Reports evidence instead of a diff to read.
code-review
Perform a structured code review of changes, checking for correctness, style, tests, and potential issues.
cli-command
Design, implement, or review Composio CLI commands under ts/packages/cli using Effect, effect/cli, services, output conventions, configuration and environment variables, and local vendor references. Use for CLI command UX, command wiring, service changes, or CLI source edits. Do not use for CLI E2E-only work; use…
red-team-review
Unified adversarial review, two modes. Strategic Matrix v4.3 (MTA-004) for arguments/plans/decisions: Priors → Rubric → Adversarial Lenses → SWOT/TOWS → MCDA → Blind Spot/Kill Switch → Summary. Deliverable Audit for built artefacts (assignments, reports, code outputs): isolated fresh-context hunt against the brief…
test-generator
Generate pytest test cases for Python functions and classes.