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 paultyng/skill-issue --skill active-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/paultyng/skill-issueWrote 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/paultyng/skill-issue/active-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/paultyng/skill-issue/active-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paultyng/skill-issue/active-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/paultyng/skill-issue/active-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paultyng/skill-issue/active-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 | $0.00000 | $0.03338 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.01335 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00668 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00334 |
Grade A, and why
active-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 1mo 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 — 198 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Active Review
Prepare a human to review a PR. Reshape a /review-all pass into three terse blocks: PR summary, the files most worth eyeballing, and paste-ready inline comment drafts with GitHub deep-links. The skill never posts — the user posts manually.
Mirror to active-read: the agent loads the context, the human stays in the loop.
Workflow
1. Resolve target
Determine what's being reviewed and capture metadata.
- Argument forms accepted:
<PR number>,<PR URL>,<branch>, or nothing (default). - Default: current branch's PR (
gh pr view --json number,url,headRefOid,baseRefName,title,body,headRepository,headRepositoryOwner). If no PR exists for the current branch, fall back to a branch-vs-base diff and skip the deep-link generation steps that require a PR. - Capture:
pr_url,pr_number,org(fromheadRepositoryOwner.login),repo(fromheadRepository.name),head_sha,base_ref,title,body(PR description, may be empty).
If a <branch> argument is given but no PR exists, ask the user once whether to (a) open a draft PR first, or (b) proceed branch-only without deep-links. Do not infer.
2. Detect fresh review artifact
/review-all writes .reviews/<date>/SUMMARY.md with a metadata header that includes the full HEAD SHA. Reuse if fresh; otherwise re-run.
LATEST=$(ls -t .reviews/*/SUMMARY.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
if [ -n "$LATEST" ] && grep -q "$head_sha" "$LATEST"; then
echo "reusing review: $LATEST"
SUMMARY="$LATEST"
else
echo "running fresh /review-all (no artifact for $head_sha)"
SUMMARY=""
fi
State the chosen path to the user in one line before proceeding: reusing review from <sha> or running fresh review.
3. Run /review-all if needed
When SUMMARY is empty, invoke /review-all against the resolved scope. Pass --focus "<area>" through if the user supplied it. Wait for the artifact, then set SUMMARY to the resulting .reviews/<date>/SUMMARY.md.
If /review-all errors or produces zero findings, say so explicitly and stop. Do not fabricate findings to fill the output.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 198 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 06bd9307c3e2
active-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository paultyng/skill-issue (8 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 3,338 tokens. 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
gh-address-comments
Triage and address open GitHub PR review and conversation comments using the gh CLI. Use when the user wants to "address PR comments", "resolve review threads", or "respond to reviewers" on the current branch's pull request.
merge-open-prs
Review, verify (Docker by default), and auto-merge open PRs when CI, reviews, and local verification pass. Batch up to 10 PRs per run. Use when the user wants to merge all open PRs, clear the PR queue, or run /merge-open-prs.
address-github-pr-comments
Address review comments on the current GitHub PR.
git-review
Review code changes, pull requests, or merge requests for bugs, code quality, security, and maintainability. Use when asked to review a PR, MR, diff, or set of changes. Also handles GitHub PRs and GitLab MRs.
pr-requirement-capture
Use when GH starts a message with "PR :" or "PR:". Treat the following text as a requirement that should be captured and worked through a GitHub pull-request workflow instead of remaining only in chat.
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…