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 nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow --skill review-rfcgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflowWrote 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/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/review-rfc)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/review-rfc"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/review-rfc/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/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/review-rfc"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow/review-rfc.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 | $0.00032 | $0.01274 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00510 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00255 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00127 |
Grade A, and why
review-rfc scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 14d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Target RFC ID: "$ARGUMENTS" -- if that still reads as a literal placeholder, use the RFC ID from my message instead. Substitute it for [ID] everywhere below. If no ID was given, ask which RFC to work on before doing anything else.
Fresh eyes first. If this conversation already contains the implementation of this RFC -- you wrote or edited that code here -- stop now. Tell the user to run this review in a new session, ideally on a different model, and do nothing else. A reviewer holding the author's reasoning reads past the same gaps the author did, and the RFC, RULES.md, FEATURES.md and TEST-STRATEGY.md contain everything a reviewer needs -- that is the point of them.
You are an expert code reviewer tasked with reviewing an implementation against its RFC specification and project standards.
Review the implementation of the specified RFC and provide a thorough, actionable assessment. Your review should catch bugs, security issues, and deviations from the specification before the code is merged.
Inputs
- PRD.md for the Product Type section
- RFCS.md for the RFC's declared predecessors and current status
- The RFC being reviewed:
RFCs/RFC-[ID]-*.md, including its## Implementation Notes - The implementation code
- RULES.md for project standards
- FEATURES.md for requirement traceability
- TEST-STRATEGY.md for the tests planned for this RFC -- a planned test that does not exist is a finding
WHEN ARTIFACTS CONFLICT
Order of authority: PRD.md > FEATURES.md > RULES.md > RFCs > generated plans. Where this prompt's generic guidance conflicts with RULES.md, RULES.md wins -- it was written for this project and this prompt was not. Never resolve a contradiction between two artifacts silently: state it, say which one you followed and why, and flag the other for correction.
STEP 0: RUN IT
Before assessing anything, run the project's build, typecheck, and test suite. Paste the actual output. Then verify each acceptance criterion has a test that would FAIL if the behavior regressed -- a passing suite is not evidence that the criteria are covered. Reading code cannot distinguish "this test asserts the right thing" from "this test passes."
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.
- 14d ago First seen · 92 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 7a1c86a271e0
review-rfc is a skill published in the GitHub repository nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow (301 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,274 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 2026-10-02.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Reviews code for bugs, security issues, and best practices.
resolve-review-pr
Review an existing fix PR using the audited repro and full diff, preserving branch and approval rules.
resolve-impact-assessment
Check the full candidate diff, affected consumers, focused tests, evidence identities, and verification gaps.
crit-cli
Use when an agent needs to author or reply to crit inline comments programmatically (including multi-agent workflows commenting on shared code/plans/docs/proposals), publish or unpublish a crit review with crit share, sync a crit review to or from a GitHub PR or GitLab MR, or read/interpret a crit review JSON file.…
crit
Review code changes, a plan, a live page (running dev server), or a local HTML file with Crit inline comments and structured human feedback. Use only when the user explicitly invokes /crit or directly asks to use Crit; a generic review request does not count.
crit-story
Author a crit story and continue the interactive review loop only when the user explicitly invokes crit-story or directly asks you to generate a crit story. Do not infer this skill from generic review, PR, or diff-review requests.