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 Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp --skill loop-review-fixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcpWrote 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/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/loop-review-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/loop-review-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/loop-review-fix/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/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/loop-review-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/loop-review-fix.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00248 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00124 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00050 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
loop-review-fix 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 8d 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
Loop: review-fix
Follow the ordered workflow below. Respect every human-approval gate, iteration bound, and stop condition.
name: review-fix
description: Review the diff against the spec, then fix only the blocking findings.
max_iterations: 3
steps:
- name: review
command: /review
instruction: Review the diff against the spec; label findings blocking or non-blocking.
- name: fix
command: /fix
instruction: Fix every blocking finding with the smallest change; no unrelated work.
- name: reverify
instruction: Re-run gates; repeat review until there are no blocking findings.
gate: gates/default.yml
Apply
context-discoverybefore broad scanning: use a supplied context capsule first; otherwise check context frontmatter freshness, read.agent/context/routing.md, load only relevant summaries, and verify critical claims against source.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 29 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 0717e735d647
loop-review-fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 248 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.