sw-review

sw-review is a skill for Claude Code from Obsidian-Owl/specwright. It costs 30 tokens per session (2,108 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A GitHub pull-request review helper that collects reviewer comments, groups them by priority and status, and prepares replies or thread resolutions for approval.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review all comments on a pull request, decide which issues or suggestions to address, draft replies, and resolve individual discussion threads.
Why use it?
It reduces the work of finding, sorting and responding to review comments. It also keeps responses tied to the related work and test evidence when that context is available.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter. Also seen: names the AskUserQuestion tool.

Good fit Use it to review all comments on a pull request, decide which issues or suggestions to address, draft replies, and resolve individual discussion threads.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/obsidian-owl/specwright/sw-review
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add Obsidian-Owl/specwright --skill sw-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Obsidian-Owl/specwright

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for sw-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/obsidian-owl/specwright/sw-review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/obsidian-owl/specwright/sw-review)
Your own site
<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="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 30 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,108 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00030 $0.02108
Opus 5 $0.00015 $0.01054
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00422
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00211

Measured 8d ago against content hash 83f8036b0a0a, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-08, from the pricing page.

Security

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 8d 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.

core/skills/sw-review/SKILL.md · 169 lines

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.jsongit.prTool and git.baseBranch settings
  • Current branch: detected via git branch --show-current
  • GitHub PR: discovered via gh pr list --head {branch}
  • PR comments fetched via gh api REST 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 api POST to the appropriate endpoint
  • Resolved threads marked via resolveReviewThread GraphQL mutation

Read the full file on GitHub · 169 lines

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.

  1. 8d ago First seen · 169 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 83f8036b0a0a

Subscribe to this mod's changes

sw-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Obsidian-Owl/specwright (9 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 2,108 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

recipe-front-review

Reviews completed frontend implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applies user-approved React corrections.

shinpr/claude-code-workflows · 29 tokens

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…

hyhmrright/brooks-lint · 143 tokens

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…

hyhmrright/brooks-lint · 178 tokens

crap-analyzer

Use to produce a risk-based refactor + test plan for recently-changed code on a diff/branch/PR by computing CRAP (complexity × untested) on changed methods. Multi-language — TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Java, Kotlin, Go, Ruby, C#, Rust, PHP — auto-discovers how the repo generates coverage. Triggers …

swingerman/engineer · 109 tokens

procoder

Work like a senior developer in a repository governed by procoder: run the commit gate before calling anything done, format and lint through the binary, and drive the spec, plan, todo, backlog, and sprint chain in .procoder/. Use this skill when the repository contains a .procoder/ directory or an AGENTS.md naming…

azrtydxb/procoder · 101 tokens

code-review

The depth half of a review - the dimensions a diff is read against (correctness, boundaries, concurrency, failure paths, secrets, data access, structure, test quality) and the rule that a finding is refuted before it is reported. The verdict stays with the reviewer agent. Use when reviewing a diff or a pull request…

jjanczur/tyran · 80 tokens