Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to openshift/lightspeed-agentic-operator. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openshift/lightspeed-agentic-operator/main/.cursor/skills/review-pr/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/openshift/lightspeed-agentic-operatorWrote 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/openshift/lightspeed-agentic-operator/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/openshift/lightspeed-agentic-operator/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/openshift/lightspeed-agentic-operator/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/openshift/lightspeed-agentic-operator/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/openshift/lightspeed-agentic-operator/review-pr.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 | $0.00018 | $0.01331 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00532 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00266 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00133 |
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 — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review PR
When asked to review a PR, follow this structured approach.
1. Fetch Latest Changes
Always fetch the latest PR state before reviewing. The cached PR data may be stale.
git fetch upstream pull/<PR_NUMBER>/head:pr-<PR_NUMBER>
git log pr-<PR_NUMBER> --oneline -10
git diff upstream/main...pr-<PR_NUMBER> --stat
For follow-up reviews, re-fetch to get new commits:
git fetch upstream pull/<PR_NUMBER>/head:pr-<PR_NUMBER> --force
Read diffs per area (controllers, reconcilers, assets, tests) rather than one massive diff.
2. Understand What It Implements
- Summarize the feature/fix in 2-3 sentences
- Identify the flow: entry point -> processing -> output
- Map which files serve which role (controller, reconciler, assets, CRD, test)
3. Evaluate How It's Implemented
Only raise issues if you have a concrete concern — not as a checklist to fill:
- Architecture: Is logic clearly in the wrong layer? (e.g. business logic leaking into controller/reconciler)
- Error handling: Are errors silently swallowed with
_ = err, or is error wrapping missing where failure is plausible? - Duplication: Is the same logic copy-pasted, not just similar-looking?
- For deep analysis, use the find-duplication skill
- Dead code / docs: Is there obviously unused code or a doc update that's clearly missing?
- For comprehensive analysis, use the find-dead-code skill
- Complexity: Are functions overly complex with high cyclomatic/cognitive complexity?
- For detailed analysis, use the find-complexity skill
Skip this section if nothing stands out.
4. Assess Naming
Only flag naming if it is genuinely misleading or inconsistent with established patterns in the codebase. Do not flag stylistic preferences or minor wording variations.
- Check against Go conventions: exported functions start with uppercase, package-level names don't stutter
- Verify interface names end in
-er(Reader, Writer, Reconciler)
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 · 118 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 7684aaba667f
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository openshift/lightspeed-agentic-operator (15 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 1,331 once invoked, about $0.0001 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"…
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…
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…