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 parisgroup-ai/imersao-ia-setup --skill team-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/parisgroup-ai/imersao-ia-setupWrote 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/parisgroup-ai/imersao-ia-setup/team-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/parisgroup-ai/imersao-ia-setup/team-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/parisgroup-ai/imersao-ia-setup/team-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/parisgroup-ai/imersao-ia-setup/team-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/parisgroup-ai/imersao-ia-setup/team-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 | $0.00065 | $0.01521 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00608 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00304 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00152 |
Grade A, and why
team-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 21d 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 — 228 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Team Reviewer
Scatter-gather code review team. Spawns specialized review agents in parallel, aggregates findings, and outputs a scored report.
Usage
/team-reviewer # Auto-detect (PR or local diff), deep mode
/team-reviewer --quick # Auto-detect, quick mode (3 agents)
/team-reviewer 142 # Review PR #142, deep mode
/team-reviewer 142 --quick # Review PR #142, quick mode
Parse Arguments
Extract from: {{ARGUMENTS}}
PR_NUMBER = first numeric argument (e.g., 142) or empty
QUICK_MODE = true if --quick flag present
If no arguments: auto-detect scope, deep mode.
Phase 1: DETECT Scope
Determine what code to review. Run these commands:
# 1. If PR_NUMBER provided:
gh pr diff {PR_NUMBER} --name-only # files list
gh pr diff {PR_NUMBER} # full diff
gh pr view {PR_NUMBER} --json title,body,commits # PR metadata
# 2. If NO PR_NUMBER, check if branch has a PR:
gh pr list --head $(git branch --show-current) --json number,title --limit 1
# 2a. If PR found → use that PR number, run commands from step 1
# 2b. If NO PR found → local diff:
git diff HEAD --name-only # files list
git diff HEAD # full diff (staged + unstaged)
git log --oneline -10 # recent commits for context
Store:
DIFF— the full diff contentFILES— list of changed filesSCOPE_LABEL— "PR #N (title)" or "Local diff (branch-name)"STATS— file count, lines added/removed
If diff is empty, report "No changes to review" and stop.
Phase 2: SCATTER (Spawn Agents)
Agent Selection
If QUICK_MODE:
agents = [code-quality, security, silent-failure] # 3 agents
Else:
agents = [code-quality, security, silent-failure,
type-design, test-coverage, commit-hygiene] # 6 agents
Create Team and Spawn
- TeamCreate with name
team-reviewer - TaskCreate one task per agent
- Spawn ALL agents in parallel using Task tool with:
team_name: "team-reviewer"subagent_type: "team-reviewer-{agent-name}"run_in_background: truemodel: "sonnet"(cost-efficient for review tasks)
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.
- 21d ago First seen · 228 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A 16f4ba603ee5
team-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository parisgroup-ai/imersao-ia-setup (1 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 1,521 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-10-06.
Other skills, from other repositories
improve-code-quality
Guided journey from a working-but-untested vibe-coded prototype to a production-ready product with tests, clean structure, a business-rules boundary, and resilience at scale. Orchestrates nine skills phase by phase - working-with-legacy-code, clean-code, refactoring-patterns, software-design-philosophy…
refactoring-patterns
Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", "technical debt", "move method", "inline variable", "decompose conditional", or "clean up this messy code". Also trigger when…
pr-quality-report
Write the Quality Report that closes a pull request description — changes summary, security analysis, tests written, checks deferred to CI, performance, and accessibility, each section only when the diff touched its subject — and attach it as the last section of the PR body, or regenerate it safely on an existing PR.…
code-standards-checker
Run the right linting, formatting, and static-analysis commands after changing code, and check it against PHPCS, ESLint, WordPress Coding Standards, or Drupal Coding Standards. Reads the scripts blocks in composer.json and package.json to find the project's own commands, runs auto-fix before check-only and verifies…
pr-review
Review a pull request or analyze local changes before submitting. Checks the diff against what the ticket asked for, then for correctness bugs, and reports only findings that survive a concrete failure scenario and verification against the file. Findings post as inline suggestions, and silence is a valid result.…
ai-slop-cleaner
A Korean-language cleanup workflow for removing low-quality or unnecessary AI-generated code, with tests used to guard against regressions, meaning new changes that break existing behavior.