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 open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment --skill review-readinessgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignmentWrote 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/open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment/review-readiness)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment/review-readiness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment/review-readiness/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/open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment/review-readiness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment/review-readiness.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 | $0.00040 | $0.01743 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00697 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00349 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00174 |
Grade A, and why
review-readiness 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 — 150 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review-readiness
Decide whether RNA context makes a PR or working-tree diff easier to review, then produce the smallest useful review map.
This is a skill, not a fixed report generator. The agent chooses the probes that fit the change. The point is not to prettify git diff; it is to answer review questions that raw diff cannot answer cheaply:
- Which changed symbols are structurally important?
- Which callers, outcomes, guardrails, or docs should a reviewer inspect?
- Which missing metadata actually blocks review, and which does not matter?
- Where is RNA adding value, and where is plain diff already the right artifact?
If RNA adds no value for the current diff, say that directly and review from the diff.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS may identify the change to inspect:
- empty: current working tree diff
--base main: the two-ref rangemain..HEAD(two dots;search(mode="change")rejects three-dot ranges)--base <sha1> --head <sha2>: explicit range--pr 660: GitHub PR diff
Procedure
Step 0: Try the change bundle first
Before manually assembling diff shape and graph context, call
search(mode="change", query=<scope>) (#899): <scope> is "working_tree"
(default), "staged", or "<base>..<head>" (map --base X to X..HEAD,
--base X --head Y to X..Y, and --pr N to <pr-base-sha>..<pr-head-sha>; always the two-dot form -- three-dot ranges are rejected). This
one call already composes hunk-intersected changed files/symbols, blast
radius (labelled graph-evidenced vs. name-based by Calls-coverage readiness),
tests to run with a no-test gap count, co-change misses, and risk
(churn/complexity/notes/doc-drift) -- most of Steps 1-3 below in one bounded
report. Use it as the primary source and fall back to the manual steps only
for probes it doesn't cover (e.g. reading the actual diff text, outcome_progress,
or drilling into a specific symbol with mode="neighbors"/"impact"
directly).
Step 1: Get the diff shape
Use the cheapest source that matches the argument:
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 Changed · +15 lines 869b93d20018
- 1mo ago First seen · 135 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A e27e85c70046
review-readiness is a skill published in the GitHub repository open-horizon-labs/repo-native-alignment (6 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,743 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…