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 ondrasek/cc-plugins --skill review-prgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ondrasek/cc-pluginsWrote 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/ondrasek/cc-plugins/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ondrasek/cc-plugins/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ondrasek/cc-plugins/review-pr/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/ondrasek/cc-plugins/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ondrasek/cc-plugins/review-pr.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 | $0.00083 | $0.01977 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00791 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00395 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00198 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 234 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review PR
Shepherds a pull request from open to merged: finds or creates a PR, then loops — polling CI checks and review comments, fixing failures, addressing feedback, pushing, and re-polling — until the PR is green and approved.
Critical Rules
- Read cross-cutting behaviors first:
skills/shared/references/cross-cutting.md - Never run on main/master — refuse and explain why
- Never auto-resolve reviewer questions or disagreements — only resolve threads after making a code fix
- Never auto-resolve merge conflicts — escalate to the user
- Always include
#Nissue reference in commit messages (existing hook enforces this) - Max 5 loop iterations by default — ask user before continuing beyond that
- GraphQL for review threads — REST API does not expose
isResolved; seereferences/graphql-queries.md
Prerequisites Check
# 1. Must NOT be on main/master
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current)
# If main or master → stop with error
# 2. Check for uncommitted changes
git status --porcelain
# 3. Verify gh authentication
gh auth status
If uncommitted changes exist, warn the user and ask: stash, commit, or abort.
Phase 1: Ensure PR Exists
Check for existing PR
gh pr view --json number,url,title,state,baseRefName,isDraft,reviewDecision,statusCheckRollup
Decision tree
| Result | Action |
|---|---|
| PR exists, OPEN | Proceed to Phase 2 |
| PR exists, MERGED | Inform user: "This PR was already merged." Stop. |
| PR exists, CLOSED | Inform user: "This PR was closed." Ask to reopen or stop. |
| No PR exists | Create one (see below) |
Creating a new PR
-
Push the branch:
git push -u origin HEAD -
Detect linked issue from branch name (
<number>-<description>convention):# Extract issue number from branch name ISSUE_NUMBER=$(echo "$BRANCH" | grep -oE '^[0-9]+') -
Get default branch:
gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q '.defaultBranchRef.name'
What ships with it
2 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 234 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 7f474dff0f13
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository ondrasek/cc-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 1,977 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
pr
Draft a PR body from OMC's paper trail — the smallest visual that proves the change, evidence consumed from the verify protocol (never re-collected), reversibility from the ADR test on the diff, glossary language throughout.
merge-batch
Prepare and merge an owner-selected PR batch with contributor credit and exact-candidate admission. Use for a pasted PR list; combined focused validation is diagnostic, and every actual landing still requires its applicable checks and authorization.
otto-pr-review-loop
Run Polly and OCR on a PR until all findings settle.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…