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 oxbshw/LLM-Agents-Ecosystem-Handbook --skill api-design-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oxbshw/LLM-Agents-Ecosystem-HandbookWrote 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/oxbshw/llm-agents-ecosystem-handbook/api-design-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oxbshw/llm-agents-ecosystem-handbook/api-design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oxbshw/llm-agents-ecosystem-handbook/api-design-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/oxbshw/llm-agents-ecosystem-handbook/api-design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oxbshw/llm-agents-ecosystem-handbook/api-design-reviewer.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 | $0.00035 | $0.00530 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00265 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
api-design-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 12d 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
API Design Reviewer
When to use
- A new endpoint / mutation / schema is being proposed
- A breaking change is on the table
- An API draft needs a second pair of eyes before stakeholder review
When NOT to use
- Pure implementation details (use
repo-auditor) - UI / UX feedback
- Cost / SLA tradeoffs (those need product discussion)
Inputs
| Name | Type | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
spec |
path or text | yes | OpenAPI / GraphQL SDL / Markdown design doc |
mode |
"public" | "internal" |
no | Default internal. public raises the bar on backwards-compat. |
Outputs
A Markdown review with sections: Critical, Important, Nits, Open questions.
Workflow
- Parse the spec; list the operations / types touched
- For each operation, walk
references/api-review-checklist.md:- Naming consistent with neighbors?
- Resource model coherent?
- Errors enumerated and typed?
- Pagination present (where lists are returned)?
- Auth + authz documented?
- Idempotency on writes?
- Versioning strategy?
- For breaking changes, surface the contract delta explicitly
- Group findings into Critical (blockers), Important (should fix), Nits (style)
- Append Open questions for the author
References
Success criteria
- 0 fabricated findings (every finding cites a section of the spec)
- Critical/Important findings have a concrete suggested fix
- Tone is collegial, not pedantic
Failure modes
- Spec too large (> 200 ops) → split into modules and ask the author which to focus on
- Internal jargon in the spec without definitions → list as Open questions, don't guess
Examples
- Good: "Critical —
GET /usersreturns an unbounded list. Add cursor pagination (suggested:?cursor=...&limit=...)." - Bad: "I think pagination might be useful here."
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 60 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A d20421b4c4e1
api-design-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository oxbshw/LLM-Agents-Ecosystem-Handbook (546 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 530 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
platform-apex-generate
Primary Apex authoring skill for class generation, refactoring, and review. ALWAYS ACTIVATE when the user mentions Apex, .cls, triggers, or asks to create/refactor a class (service, selector, domain, batch, queueable, schedulable, invocable, DTO, utility, interface, abstract, exception, REST resource). Use this skill…
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.
flow-next-resolve-pr
Resolve PR review feedback. Fetches unresolved threads, triages, fixes, replies and resolves via GraphQL. Use when asked to address review comments.
api-contract-review
Use when auditing CloudBase cloud API wrappers, MCP tools, generated action metadata, or related docs for outdated or incorrect action names, parameters, casing, request shapes, or missing contract tests, especially during periodic quality review or before preparing corrective PRs.
api-reviewer
A review of an API contract, the agreed description of how software systems exchange requests, responses, events, or files.
code-review-nodejs
Applies Node.js-specific code review patterns for async I/O, streams, security, process management, and dependency hygiene. Use when reviewing Node.js server code, route handlers, middleware, or any JavaScript file alongside package.json without TypeScript. Triggers on sync I/O in request paths, missing stream…