Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit/plugin install deep-thoughtWrote 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/ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit/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/ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit/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 | $0.00086 | $0.02532 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.01013 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00506 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00253 |
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 2mo 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 — 248 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
One focused review. Not nine shallow passes — one deep one that reads carefully, evaluates with evidence, and gives a clear verdict.
Boundaries
This skill MAY: read code, analyze diffs, read documents, present findings. This skill MAY NOT: edit code, fix issues, create PRs, push changes, modify any files.
This is a review, not a fix. Present findings — the user decides what to do.
Common Rationalizations
| Shortcut | Why It Fails | The Cost |
|---|---|---|
| "Skim the diff — I'll catch the important stuff" | The one line you skip is the one that matters | Bug in production that a careful read would have caught |
| "No security concerns here" | Auth checks, input validation, and secrets leak through seemingly innocent code | Vulnerability shipped because nobody looked |
| "The tests pass, so the logic is correct" | Tests verify what the author THOUGHT, not edge cases they missed | False confidence → undetected regression |
| "Just style nits — not worth mentioning" | Mixing nits with real findings buries critical issues | Author reads 10 nits, misses the 1 security bug |
Phase 1: Detect Review Type
Entry: User invoked /review with input (or no input = current branch diff).
Auto-detect based on input:
| Input | Review Type | How |
|---|---|---|
| No arguments | Code — current branch diff | git diff $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD |
File path to .md in docs/plans/ or docs/brainstorms/ |
Document | Read and evaluate against document criteria |
| File path to code files | Code — specific files | Read and review those files |
| PR URL or number | Code — PR diff | gh pr diff <number> |
| Directory path | Architecture — structural review | Analyze patterns, conventions, dependencies |
If ambiguous: Use AskUserQuestion (header: "Review type", question: "What are we reviewing?") with options: "Code changes" (description: "Review the diff or specific code files") and "Document" (description: "Evaluate the plan, brainstorm, or spec itself").
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 248 lines · 86 tokens per session scan A 65bcc6809be9
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 2,532 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 2026-08-30.
review compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| reviewondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit | Skill | 19 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 86 | Claude Code |
| autoreviewopenclaw/clawhub | Skill | 9.5k | today | MIT | A | 17 | Claude Code, Codex |
| agent-teams-simplify-and-hardenLeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills | Skill | 2.2k | 6d ago | MIT | A | 115 | Claude Code, Codex |
| omh-code-reviewrlaope/oh-my-hermes | Skill | 5.2k | yesterday | MIT | A | 48 | Claude Code, Codex |
| revdiff-planumputun/revdiff | Skill | 945 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 84 | Claude Code |
| explore-unknownsdzhng/skills | Skill | 1.4k | 2d ago | MIT | A | 162 | Claude Code, Codex |
| re0-mergeLilMGenius/paperthin | Skill | 1.4k | 4d ago | MIT | A | 70 | Claude Code |