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 oreum-ai/smartstack --skill pr-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oreum-ai/smartstackWrote 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/oreum-ai/smartstack/pr-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oreum-ai/smartstack/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oreum-ai/smartstack/pr-reviewer/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/oreum-ai/smartstack/pr-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oreum-ai/smartstack/pr-reviewer.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00455 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00182 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00091 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
pr-reviewer 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.
What it actually says
Skill: PR Reviewer
When to use
Before merging or shipping any non-trivial change, and whenever you want a thorough multi-lens review of a diff. Orchestrates the specialist agents so nothing important is missed.
What it does
Runs the change through the relevant review agents, then synthesizes one clear verdict — the right reviewers for this change, not one generic pass.
Procedure
- Understand the change. Read the diff and the stated goal. Summarize in one sentence what it does.
- Pick the lenses that apply (don't run all if only some fit):
- Touches data, auth, input, or endpoints → security-reviewer (
agents/security-reviewer.md). - Touches queries, jobs, or the request path → performance-reviewer (
agents/performance-reviewer.md). - Touches a screen / component / interaction → frontend-reviewer (
agents/frontend-reviewer.md). - Touches docs / context / memory → doc-reviewer (
agents/doc-reviewer.md). - Always → code-reviewer (
agents/code-reviewer.md) for correctness and craft.
- Touches data, auth, input, or endpoints → security-reviewer (
- Run each chosen lens; collect findings with severities.
- Synthesize. Merge, de-duplicate, order by severity:
- Must fix (blocks merge) — especially any Critical security finding.
- Should fix (soon). Nice to have (optional).
- A one-line verdict: approve / approve-with-changes / request-changes.
- Confirm the quality gate: lint/type/build clean, tests green for risky logic.
Output format
Start with what's done well. Then the three grouped lists (file:line, issue, why, fix). End with the verdict. Every "must fix" has a concrete change.
Rules
- A Critical security finding always blocks, regardless of diff size.
- Don't rubber-stamp. If it's clean, say what you checked and why it's safe.
- Keep the review scoped to the diff; note unrelated issues separately as "out of scope."
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 · 34 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 98c6535524e1
pr-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository oreum-ai/smartstack (6 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 455 tokens. 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…