Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to nwiizo/tfmcp. 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/nwiizo/tfmcp/main/.claude/skills/review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nwiizo/tfmcpWrote 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/nwiizo/tfmcp/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwiizo/tfmcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwiizo/tfmcp/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/nwiizo/tfmcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwiizo/tfmcp/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 | $0.00023 | $0.00281 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00112 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00056 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00028 |
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 26d 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 tfmcp Modularity
Review the requested diff or modules against the architecture boundaries. Reuse current diagnostics or follow analyze. For a Rust structural or simplification review, also use similarity.
Follow signal integrity. Inspect callers and shared rules, constants, ordering assumptions, and co-changing files; static edges alone do not establish a design defect. High fan-out in server wiring or high fan-in to stable domain types may be appropriate.
Trace consequential findings across configuration, MCP routing and error mapping, Terraform execution, Registry access, and HCP/TFE operations. Check that moving responsibilities would preserve input validation, operation gates, downstream credential ownership, bounded responses, and redaction. Do not infer runtime or deployment behavior from a static report.
Report supported findings with locations, shared knowledge, likely impact, and a concrete recommendation. Include material blind spots and checks actually run; omit unsupported numeric scores and empty report sections. A review request ends with findings; when fixes are also requested, apply and verify the scoped changes.
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.
- 26d ago First seen · 28 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 4fd29c0cb597
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository nwiizo/tfmcp (372 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 281 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 2026-10-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
m15-anti-pattern
Use when reviewing code for anti-patterns. Keywords: anti-pattern, common mistake, pitfall, code smell, bad practice, code review, is this an anti-pattern, better way to do this, common mistake to avoid, why is this bad, idiomatic way, beginner mistake, fighting borrow checker, clone everywhere, unwrap in production…
architecture-audit
Systematic architecture audit and refactoring methodology for Rust + TypeScript codebases. Use when performing refactoring, cleanup, unification, code review, dead code removal, module reorganization, or tech debt elimination. Ensures no naming confusion, semantic overloading, hidden defaults, duplicate logic, or…
python-design-pattern
Python design patterns and anti-patterns. Use when designing new components, refactoring, reviewing code for common mistakes, choosing abstractions, or evaluating pull requests for structural issues like tight coupling, leaking internal types, or error handling problems.
frama-c-proofreader
Verify and proofread C code with ACSL using this repository's Frama-C MCP workflow, Frama-C WP static proof, EVA alarms, and optional E-ACSL runtime checks. Use when asked to run Frama-C, check ACSL contracts, explain WP goals, inspect EVA alarms, validate C annotations, or state what a C proof does and does not…
writing-rust
Idiomatic Rust development. Use when writing Rust code, Cargo crates/workspaces, Rust tests, or rustfmt/clippy/cargo workflows. Emphasizes ownership, Result errors, small APIs, stdlib-first dependencies, fast cargo feedback, and behavior tests. NOT for Go, Python, TypeScript, shell scripts, or infra-only work.
pond
Recall and analyze past AI agent sessions (Claude Code, Codex, opencode, and more). Find prior work and decisions, read/review/summarize a past session transcript, or run SQL analytics over session history. Use whenever the user references past sessions, prior work, "check pond", or asks what was done or decided…