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 Obsidian-Owl/specwright --skill sw-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Obsidian-Owl/specwrightWrote 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/obsidian-owl/specwright/sw-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/obsidian-owl/specwright/sw-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/obsidian-owl/specwright/sw-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/obsidian-owl/specwright/sw-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/obsidian-owl/specwright/sw-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 | $0.00030 | $0.02108 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00843 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00422 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00211 |
Grade A, and why
sw-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 169 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Specwright Review
Goal
Surface PR review comments, triage autonomously per Google severity framework
(protocols/decision.md), draft replies, and present for approval before
posting. When the associated Specwright work can be resolved safely, use
review-packet.md, approvals.md, and unit evidence as the primary reply
context instead of reasoning from the diff alone. Stateless with respect to
Specwright state — never modifies workflow.json.
Fetch all comment types, group by status, apply autonomous triage:
- Functional issues (API misuse, missing validation): fix code and draft reply
- Nits (style, naming): acknowledge, apply if <2 minutes
- Suggestions: apply if they improve code health, push back with reasoning if not
- Conflicting comments: follow the one most aligned with constitution/spec
The PR itself is the review surface — reviewers see replies directly. When no associated work can be matched, say so explicitly and use a diff-only fallback.
Inputs
{projectArtifactsRoot}/config.json—git.prToolandgit.baseBranchsettings- Current branch: detected via
git branch --show-current - GitHub PR: discovered via
gh pr list --head {branch} - PR comments fetched via
gh apiREST and GraphQL endpoints - Associated Specwright work when it can be matched safely from PR number or branch:
{repoStateRoot}/work/*/workflow.json{workDir}/review-packet.md{workArtifactsRoot}/{workId}/approvals.md{workDir}/evidence/*.md
Outputs
- Grouped display of all PR comments by status and type:
- Unresolved threads (highest priority, shown first)
- Open issue comments (general PR conversation)
- Resolved or addressed threads (shown last)
- Each comment shows: author, timestamp, file path, line number (where applicable), and body
- When associated work is available, replies and findings use the review packet, approval lineage, and evidence as first-class context
- User responses posted via
gh apiPOST to the appropriate endpoint - Resolved threads marked via
resolveReviewThreadGraphQL mutation
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 · 169 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 83f8036b0a0a
sw-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Obsidian-Owl/specwright (10 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 2,108 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
release
Cut a brooks-lint release: set the version in package.json, propagate it across all four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file (README badges, docs site metadata), write the CHANGELOG entry, validate, then commit, push, tag, and publish the GitHub release. Triggers when the maintainer asks to "release"…
recipe-front-review
Reviews completed frontend implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applies user-approved React corrections.
new-skill
Scaffold a new brooks-lint analysis skill so it passes npm run validate and npm run evals on the first try — generates skills/{name}/SKILL.md (with the mandatory "Do NOT trigger for:" clause and a Process section citing guide step ranges) plus skills/{name}/{name}-guide.md (sequentially numbered steps), then appends…
brooks-audit
Architecture audit that maps module dependencies, checks layering integrity, and flags structural decay across a codebase, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user asks to audit architecture, review folder/module structure, check for circular imports, understand how the codebase is organized…
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
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…