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-reliabilitygit 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-reliability)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/paultyng/skill-issue/review-reliability"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paultyng/skill-issue/review-reliability/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-reliability"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paultyng/skill-issue/review-reliability.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 | $0.00106 | $0.02093 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.00837 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00419 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00209 |
Grade A, and why
review-reliability 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 10d 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.
- Every finding must cite probed evidence: `path:line`, grep output, or a command result. Pattern-matched suspicion is not evidence. 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 — 154 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reliability Review
A reliability review that produces prioritized findings with code-level references.
Workflow
1. Scope and explore
- Confirm the scope with the user: full codebase, named packages or directories, changed files only (PR or branch diff), or one named concern.
- Resolve the scope to a file and package list:
- Changed files (PR or branch): run
git diff --name-only --diff-filter=d <base>...HEAD. The default<base>ismain. If the user names a PR number, rungh pr diff <number> --name-onlyinstead. Keep.gofiles, config files, and Kubernetes manifests. Derive the affected Go packages from the file paths, which are the unique parent directories that contain.gofiles. - Explicit paths or packages: the user can name directories (
internal/auth/), Go package patterns (./internal/auth/...), or single files. For a directory or a package pattern, include every file under it. - Full codebase: no filter. Explore everything. This is the default.
- Changed files (PR or branch): run
- Pass the resolved scope (the file list) to every exploration and investigation subagent, so that findings stay scoped to those files. Reading is not scoped. Follow callees, callers, and third-party source wherever a finding depends on their behavior. Report a bug in code the scope touches or calls even when the bug predates the diff, and prefix it
pre-existing:. - Explore the scoped code with parallel subagents (
subagent_type="explore"). Read the source files, configs, Kubernetes manifests, and deployment definitions.
2. System overview
Produce a short architecture summary of:
- Services, ports, and transport (gRPC, HTTP)
- Data stores and external dependencies
- Deployment model, if you can determine it
Map the critical hot paths:
Client → Transport
→ step 1 (local / I/O annotation)
→ step 2 (DB round-trip #1)
→ step 3 (external call, round-trip #2)
→ response
Annotate each step: local or I/O, serial or parallel, cached or uncached.
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.
- 10d ago Changed · +6 lines · +49 tokens per session b4fe8e4060be
- 1mo ago First seen · 148 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A cd664b918169
review-reliability is a skill published in the GitHub repository paultyng/skill-issue (8 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 106 tokens to every session and 2,093 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
api-design-reviewer
Use when reviewing API designs for consistency, usability, versioning, error semantics, security, backward compatibility, and developer experience before implementation or release.
python-services
Python patterns for CLI tools, async parallelism, and backend services. Use when building CLI apps, async/parallel Python, FastAPI services, background jobs, or configuring Python project tooling (uv, ruff, ty).
nodejs-backend
Node.js backend patterns: framework selection, layered architecture, TypeScript, validation, error handling, security, production deployment. Use when building REST APIs, Express/Fastify servers, microservices, or server-side TypeScript.
meta-reviewing-api-reviewing
Backend code review — injection and SSRF, boundary validation, object-level authorization, mass assignment and data exposure, error leakage, N+1 and unbounded queries. Use when a diff touches API routes or handlers, database access, auth middleware, or server code that reads files, starts processes or fetches URLs.
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.