Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to pgplex/pgconsole. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pgplex/pgconsole/main/.claude/skills/pr-bot-reviews/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pgplex/pgconsoleWrote 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/pgplex/pgconsole/pr-bot-reviews)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pgplex/pgconsole/pr-bot-reviews"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pgplex/pgconsole/pr-bot-reviews/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/pgplex/pgconsole/pr-bot-reviews"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pgplex/pgconsole/pr-bot-reviews.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00164 | $0.02072 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00066 | $0.00829 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00414 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00207 |
Grade A, and why
pr-bot-reviews 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 2mo 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.
PR Bot Reviews
Automated reviewers (GitHub Copilot, Greptile) leave a lot of comments. Some are real bugs worth fixing; many are nitpicks, style preferences, or simply wrong. Your job is to act like a thoughtful senior engineer reviewing the reviewer: judge each comment honestly, fix what deserves fixing, push back on the rest with clear reasoning, and drive the PR to a clean state.
This is a loop. Each round: collect the bots' open comments → verdict each → apply accepted fixes → reply inline on every thread → commit & push → re-request both bots → wait for the fresh review → repeat. Stop when a new round produces no actionable comments.
Principle: you are pragmatic, not obedient
Bots optimize for finding things to say, not for whether the change is worth making. Do not blindly comply. The bar for a change is: would a thoughtful senior engineer make this change? If yes, make it. If not, decline and say why.
- Fix: correctness bugs, security issues, data-loss risks, resource leaks, off-by-one / null / boundary errors, broken edge cases, genuinely confusing code, clear violations of the repo's own conventions.
- Push back: subjective style, speculative "what if" hardening for impossible
inputs, premature abstraction, churn for marginal gain, suggestions that
contradict project conventions (cite
CLAUDE.mdor surrounding code), or anything that would add complexity without real benefit. The project guidelines here explicitly favor simplicity and surgical changes — defend that. - Verify before trusting. Bots hallucinate. Open the file at the referenced
path:lineand read the surrounding code before accepting a claim. Confirm the problem is real against the actual code, not just the snippet in the comment. Reject confidently-worded comments that are factually wrong, and say so plainly. - Never accept a "fix" that introduces a regression or breaks a convention just to silence a bot. A wrong fix is worse than an open comment.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 198 lines · 164 tokens per session scan A 7753740d9cc9
pr-bot-reviews is a skill published in the GitHub repository pgplex/pgconsole (157 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 164 tokens to every session and 2,072 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
bex-keyvalue
Provisions and configures bex Key Value (Redis-compatible Valkey 8) instances for caching, session storage, and job queues. Use when the user needs Key Value, uses Redis or Valkey, or needs a cache, session store, or job queue backend, or needs to configure maxmemory policy, ipAllowList, connection strings, or…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
ring:mapping-feature-relationships
Mapping how features relate and phasing the work: categorizing PRD features, grouping them into domains, charting cross-feature journeys, dependencies, and integration points, and defining the binding Phases that plan.md mirrors one-to-one at Gate 7. Gate 2 of ring:planning-large-features; runs after…