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 | $0.00043 | $0.01266 |
| Sonnet 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 12d 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.
- 12d 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 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 2,532 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…