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 agentmods add skills/patforna/auto-task/review-tasknpx skills add patforna/auto-task --skill review-taskgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/patforna/auto-taskWrote 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/patforna/auto-task/review-task)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/patforna/auto-task/review-task"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/patforna/auto-task/review-task.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00041 | $0.00570 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00285 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
review-task 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 3d 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 — 60 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Task
Usage
/at:review-task <task-path> [further user instructions]
Goal
Verify that a task has been completed according to its intent and criteria.
Context
This skill is typically run as part of a larger workflow:
create-task → clarify-task → plan-task → impl-task → review-code → review-task → ship-task
As steps (e.g. clarify, plan, impl, review) typically run in new sessions, it's imperative that the task file plus repo state carry everything the next agent needs.
Task files live in the project's task store — tasks/ in the repo by default. Project config can override this and other defaults: read .claude/auto-task.config.md (project, committed) and .claude/auto-task.config.local.md (personal overrides — win on conflict) if they exist. See /at:create-task § Task Store and Project Config.
Guidance (DO NOT IGNORE!)
These rules govern how to perform the review. Internalise and follow them throughout.
- Flag issues — do not attempt to fix them; let the user decide.
Step 1: Build Context
Read the task and the code that was implemented. Ensure you fully understand the task's intent, criteria and what was implemented.
Step 2: Verify ACs
For each acceptance criterion, determine: pass, fail, or unclear.
A criterion passes when you can point to specific evidence — for example, a test that exercises it, observable behaviour in the code, or output from running it. "The code looks like it would work" is not evidence; a passing test is.
Step 3: Verify Intent
In addition to checking ACs:
- Check that the implementation truly matches the why in the description. It's easy to meet every AC but miss the intent.
- If there were deviations from the plan, check that they are justified.
Step 4: Summarise
Say whether the review passed or, if not, present a summary of your findings and wait for user input.
Step 5: Wrap Up
Once there are no findings left, or the user has asked you to proceed, remember to set the task status to ready-for-signoff — by default, edit the frontmatter status: field and commit with a (task/NNN) subject suffix; if the project config defines a task-status command, use that instead.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 60 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A b9e381342fd9
review-task is a skill published in the GitHub repository patforna/auto-task (3 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 570 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
finishing-a-development-branch
Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work.
weather-fetcher
Instructions for fetching current weather temperature data for Dubai, UAE from Open-Meteo API.
agr-cli
Install, share, sync, and create AI agent skills across coding tools (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, OpenCode, Copilot, Pi) using the agr CLI. Use whenever the user mentions agr, agr.toml, agr.lock, agrx, or asks to: add a skill ("install the pdf skill", "agr add ..."), sync agent resources across tools, share skills…
agr-release
Release process for the agr package. Handles version bumping (major/minor/patch/beta), changelog updates, pre-release quality checks, git tagging, and monitoring the GitHub Actions publish pipeline. Use this skill whenever the user wants to cut a release, bump the version, publish to PyPI, or asks about the release…
linkedin-post
You take a YouTube video transcript and produce a single LinkedIn post draft.
incident-response
Protocolo de respuesta ante incidentes en produccion: triaje, mitigacion, causa raiz y postmortem. Usar ante caidas, errores criticos, incidentes de seguridad o degradacion de servicio.