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 oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix --skill pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenixWrote 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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/pr-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/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix/pr-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00059 | $0.01582 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00791 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00316 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
pr-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 7d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review Response
Close the review loop: fetch unresolved threads → fix → reply → resolve.
GitHub's isResolved is the state — re-runs are idempotent, handled
threads drop out automatically.
Usage
/phx:pr-review 42 # Triage unresolved threads on PR #42
/phx:pr-review 42 --fix # Triage + apply approved code fixes
/phx:pr-review https://... # Full URL also works (repo parsed from URL)
/phx:pr-review 42 --bots-only # Triage only CI bot threads (Copilot, Codex...)
/phx:pr-review 42 --no-resolve # Reply but leave threads open
Step 1: Resolve PR + Fetch Threads
gh pr view "$PR" --json number,title,state,baseRefName,headRefName,url,author
(accepts number or URL; URL also yields owner/repo). Then fetch ALL review
threads with thread IDs + resolved status — REST alone cannot do this:
cat > /tmp/review_threads.graphql <<'GQL'
query($owner:String!, $repo:String!, $pr:Int!, $cursor:String) {
repository(owner:$owner, name:$repo) {
pullRequest(number:$pr) {
reviewThreads(first:50, after:$cursor) {
pageInfo { hasNextPage endCursor }
nodes {
id isResolved isOutdated path line originalLine
comments(first:20) { nodes {
databaseId body createdAt
author { login __typename } } }
}
}
}
}
}
GQL
gh api graphql --paginate -F owner="$OWNER" -F repo="$REPO" -F pr="$PR" \
-F query=@/tmp/review_threads.graphql \
--jq '.data.repository.pullRequest.reviewThreads.nodes[]
| select(.isResolved == false)
| {threadId: .id, isOutdated, path, line: (.line // .originalLine),
firstCommentId: .comments.nodes[0].databaseId,
author: .comments.nodes[0].author.login,
isBot: (.comments.nodes[0].author.__typename == "Bot"),
body: .comments.nodes[0].body}'
Also fetch review summaries (gh api "repos/$OWNER/$REPO/pulls/$PR/reviews")
— they are NOT threads and cannot be resolved; surface CHANGES_REQUESTED
bodies separately. Bot detection: __typename == "Bot" / user.type == "Bot"
(the [bot] login suffix is NOT reliable across endpoints).
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 149 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 31ff21551f99
pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository oliver-kriska/claude-elixir-phoenix (542 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 1,582 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
stage
Use when committing work from the current session to stage ONLY hunks the session touched, not the entire file. Prevents accidentally staging unrelated uncommitted changes from other work.
pr-review
Comprehensive code review for pull requests using parallel multi-agent analysis. Audits CLAUDE.md compliance, checks for bugs, analyzes git history, reviews comments, and filters by confidence score. Use when reviewing a GitHub PR, mentions "code review", "review this PR", or "/code-review".
gitplan
Plan and execute coherent Conventional Commit groupings for tangled working tree changes — multiple intertwined logical edits that need to be split into separate, reviewable commits.
review-staged
Top-level, user-facing workflow to review the staged Git diff for verified bugs and then prepare a clean Conventional Commit. Use when the user directly asks to review staged changes or prepare their commit. Do not use for a delegated leaf review or finding-validation task.
git-for-research-code
When the user wants to version-control optimization research code - small commits per experiment change, tags for paper result snapshots, .gitignore for solver logs, linking result tables to commit hashes, and branch strategy for risky refactors. Also use when the user mentions "git workflow," "version control…
git-ops
Use when Sam asks Claude Code to create, rename, compare, commit, push, merge, promote, or clean up Git branches. Covers Sam's feature branch naming convention, safe Git pre-checks, JetBrains DontCommit handling, commit-message defaults, push and release promotion verification, branch rename upstream cleanup, branch…