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 reviewgit 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/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/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/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp/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 | $0.00009 | $0.00369 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00185 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00074 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00037 |
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 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
/review — Review the diff against the spec
Purpose
Find defects and risks in a diff before it merges.
Invocation
/review <spec name or branch>
Accepted input
The spec and the diff (or branch) under review.
Prerequisites
An implemented change and its spec.
Procedure
- Read the spec, then the diff.
- Confirm each requirement is implemented and tested.
- Check correctness and edge cases first, conventions and style second.
- Flag unrelated or out-of-scope changes.
- Label every finding Blocking or Non-blocking with a
file:linefix.
Approval points
The verdict is the approval decision: approve / approve-with-nits / request-changes.
Expected output
A verdict plus a labelled findings list.
Failure behavior
If the diff does not match the spec, request changes and stop.
Completion checks
- Each finding includes severity, evidence, impact, and the smallest concrete correction; questions are not presented as confirmed defects.
- Requirements, tests, regression risk, compatibility, security-sensitive paths, and gate results were checked.
- Give an unambiguous verdict and state the next command:
/fixor completion.
Agents and skills
Agent: reviewer. Skill: code-review.
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 · 50 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A c01c326b2dc5
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Oriolshhh/runware-image-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 369 once invoked, about $0.0000 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.