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/pgplex/pgconsole/pr-bot-reviewsnpx skills add pgplex/pgconsole --skill pr-bot-reviewsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pgplex/pgconsoleWhat 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 | $0.00164 | $0.02072 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00082 | $0.01036 |
| Sonnet 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 2d 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.
- 2d 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 (148 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 164 tokens to every session and 2,072 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
n8n-architect
Use when the user explicitly wants to create, edit, validate, sync, or troubleshoot n8n workflows, asks about n8n nodes or automation, or wants to use n8n-as-code in the current context root.
dependabot-batch
Use when reviewing Radar's weekly Dependabot PRs and replacing the safe, 72-hour-soaked updates with one changelog-vetted, tested PR.
test-radar
Use when building and testing Radar changes with the repository's real-instance smoke-test workflow.
visual-test
Use when visually testing Radar UI changes against a real Kubernetes cluster with Playwright screenshots.
qa-find-bugs
Drive the live product at https://dashboard.bex.co as a signed-in QA user (QAEMAIL / QAPASSWORD from .env), hunt real bugs across the hosting features, research each fix down to file:line, file the non-duplicate findings to the w6 board through /pm, and /ship the scheduled milestone. Use when the user asks to QA the…
pm
Inspect and maintain the repository's .pm workstreams, inbox notes, milestones, and tasks. Use when the user asks for PM board status or requests a supported board mutation such as creating, promoting, adding, or completing work.