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 review-allgit 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/review-all)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/paultyng/skill-issue/review-all"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paultyng/skill-issue/review-all/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/review-all"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paultyng/skill-issue/review-all.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 | $0.00102 | $0.07468 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00051 | $0.03734 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.01494 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00747 |
Grade A, and why
review-all scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 9d 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.
Reads agent configuration directorieslowAgent snooping
.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/ hold keys, settings and other credentials a mod has no legitimate need for.
- Findings must cite probed evidence (`path:line`, grep output, command result), not pattern-matched suspicion. Per `~/.claude/rules/probe-not-assume.md`. Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 483 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Full Review
Orchestrate all domain-specific review skills as parallel subagents, then consolidate into a unified report.
Workflow
1. Scope and explore
- Confirm scope with the user: full codebase, specific packages/directories, changed files only (PR or branch diff), or specific concern.
- Resolve scope to a file/package list. Based on what the user requested:
- Changed files (PR or branch): Run
git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d <base>...HEADto get changed files (default<base>ismain). If the user references a PR number, usegh pr diff <number> --name-onlyinstead. Derive affected Go packages from the file paths (unique parent directories containing.gofiles). - Explicit paths/packages: The user may specify directories (e.g.
internal/auth/), Go package patterns (e.g../internal/auth/...), or individual files. When given a directory or package pattern, include all files under it. Derive Go package paths for static analysis tool invocations. - Full codebase: No filtering. Explore everything (default).
- Changed files (PR or branch): Run
- Pass the resolved scope (file list, derived package paths, and file-type flags below) to each review subagent in step 3 so they skip their own scope confirmation and use the provided scope directly.
- Resolve
pr_urlfor deep-linking (display-only, used in the final consolidated report). Rungh pr view --json url -q .url 2>/dev/nullto capture the PR URL for the current branch (or for the PR number the user supplied viagh pr view <num> --json url -q .url). Empty string if no PR exists. Passpr_urlto each subagent in step 3 and to the summarization subagent in step 4. Subagents wrap findingpath:linereferences using~/.claude/scripts/pr-deeplink.sh "$pr_url" <path> <line>. See Finding link wrapping below. - Classify the resolved files to determine which reviews to launch:
has_code: any source files (.go,.rs,.ts,.tsx,.js,.jsx,.swift,.kt,.kts,.py,.rb)has_go: any.gofileshas_proto: any.protofileshas_sql: any.sqlfileshas_iac: any Dockerfiles/Containerfiles, k8s manifests, Terraform (.tf/.tofu), Helm charts (Chart.yaml), service mesh / gateway CRDs (Linkerd/Istio/Gateway API/Ingress/Envoy bootstrap)has_ci: any GitHub Actions workflows (.github/workflows/*.yml), composite actions (action.yml), Dependabot/Renovate configs, or CI configs (.circleci/config.yml,.buildkite/pipeline.yml,.gitlab-ci.yml,Jenkinsfile,azure-pipelines.yml,cloudbuild.yaml,bitbucket-pipelines.yml)has_infra: shorthand forhas_iac || has_ci(kept for backwards compatibility with existing review-* subagents)has_api_specs: any.proto, OpenAPI/Swagger specs (openapi.{yml,yaml,json},swagger.{yml,yaml,json}), or GraphQL schemas (*.graphql,*.gql)has_docs: any.mdfiles or OpenAPI/Swagger specshas_manifest: any dependency manifest (go.mod,package.json,requirements.txt,pyproject.toml,Cargo.toml,Gemfile,mix.exs,composer.json)has_changes: true when scope is "changed files (PR or branch)", or when scope is "explicit paths" and those paths have a diff against the base ref (rungit diff --name-only --diff-filter=d <base>...HEAD -- <paths>to check; default base ismain). False for full-codebase reviews with no diff baseline.
- Detect opt-in flags from the user's request phrasing:
include_performance: true when the user explicitly asks for performance, perf, benchmark, profiling, pprof, hot-path, or latency review alongside the comprehensive request. Default false. Never auto-enable from file types.include_deep_security: true when the user explicitly asks for a deep / thorough security review, "CodeQL", "capability audit", "supply-chain audit", or otherwise signals willingness to pay the multi-minute cost of CodeQL database builds and capslock VTA. Default false. Standardreview-securitystill runs without this flag; the flag only enables the deep static-analysis tier. Never auto-enable from file types.
- Determine which review types are applicable using the flags above:
- review-security: applicable if
has_codeorhas_infra - review-reliability: applicable if
has_codeorhas_iac - review-code: applicable if
has_codeorhas_proto - review-database: applicable if
has_sql, or database-interacting code exists (check imports for DB drivers likepgx,pq,database/sql,sqlx,diesel,sqlalchemy, etc.) - review-coverage: applicable if
has_goandhas_changes - review-documentation: always applicable
- review-infrastructure: applicable if
has_iac - review-ci: applicable if
has_ci - review-observability: applicable if
has_code(observability gaps are code-level; configs alone aren't enough) - review-api-compat: applicable if
has_api_specsANDhas_changes(it's a diff-aware review; no diff baseline = nothing to compare) - review-performance: applicable ONLY if
include_performanceis true. Never auto-launched. - evaluate-dependency: applicable if
has_manifestANDhas_changes. Diff the manifest to find added or version-bumped dependencies (git diff <base>...HEAD -- <manifest>); run it in review mode once per added/bumped dependency. Skip when the only manifest change is a removal or a checksum-only lockfile churn.
- review-security: applicable if
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 483 lines · 102 tokens per session scan A 3af6d072c64f
review-all is a skill published in the GitHub repository paultyng/skill-issue (9 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 102 tokens to every session and 7,468 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (reads agent configuration directories). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
deep-review
Evidence-based deep code review rubric — severity + confidence findings across maintainability, correctness, security, performance, and testing. Push for ambitious structural simplification (code judo), not just local cleanup. Escalate hands-on triage to the code-reviewer agent.
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.
pr-alignment-loop
Iterate a PR to its final form by running two opposing reviewer droids (reviewer-robustness and reviewer-minimalist) in a bounded back-and-forth loop. The main orchestrator synthesizes their feedback, makes edits, runs tests, and stops when both approve, on stagnation, or after 3 rounds. Use when the user asks to…
deslop
Remove AI-generated code slop and clean up code style.
margaret-scan
Review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Scoped to the current diff by default, or the whole repo when asked to audit. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the…
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.