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/phase-rs/phase/review-implnpx skills add phase-rs/phase --skill review-implgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/phase-rs/phaseWhat 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 | $0.00072 | $0.04288 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.02144 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00858 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00429 |
Grade A, and why
review-impl 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 — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Implementation
Review for gaps: things that are missing or wrong. Do not spend findings on style nits, CI-enforced formatting, or a diff recap.
Workflow
- Identify the changed surface from the diff, commit, or named files.
- Classify the surface area: engine logic, parser, frontend/UI, multiplayer/transport, AI heuristics, deck/format/feeds, build/CI/release, or docs.
- Apply only the relevant lenses below.
- If the scope is a PR, fetch whatever external review comments exist (CodeRabbit, human reviewers) and confirm-or-refute each against the current head with code evidence, folding confirmed findings into your own. Assume none exist by default — Gemini Code Assist has been sunset, so no bot is guaranteed to have pre-screened this PR. Your own lenses are the complete review, not a supplement to a bot's; do not under-invest expecting a backstop. Where an external finding does exist, silently omitting it — or returning a verdict less severe than an open, unrefuted finding from another reviewer — is itself a defect. Review comments, checks, and uploaded/sticky artifacts count only when their evidence identifies the current PR head SHA; otherwise report the evidence as missing rather than attributing it to the current diff.
- If the scope is a PR touching engine/parser source, the parse-diff sticky comment (marker
<!-- coverage-parse-diff -->) is required evidence: fetch its full body and confront the card-level diff against the PR's claimed scope. Unexplained gained/lost/changed cards are findings (unintended parser blast radius). A Baseline pending body means the diff is unavailable — flag it so the handler brings the branch current to regenerate it; an absent comment despite changed engine source, or a comment/artifact not bound to the current PR head SHA, means CI evidence is missing for the current head. This PR-head requirement does not apply to Engine-Implementer Checkpoint Mode: review the committedBASE_SHA..CANDIDATE_SHAdiff instead. - Report findings only. Silence means LGTM.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 141 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A b4d24be05e41
review-impl is a skill published in the GitHub repository phase-rs/phase (259 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 4,288 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
qa-cli-mcp-api
Select and run explicitly requested, risk-based QA for Anarlog's CLI, webhooks, stdio MCP, hosted Cloud API, and remote MCP. Test only affected lanes unless comprehensive coverage is requested.
product-update-newsletter
Draft, update, or audit a crisp, changelog-grounded Anarlog product-update newsletter in Loops (app.loops.so) for a desktop release. Use after the changelog is merged, when asked to draft, revise, or pre-send check the release announcement email.
sqlite-schema-design
Design or review schemas for crates/cloudsync using SQLite Sync constraints, not generic SQLite advice. Use when adding synced tables, changing synced columns, or planning CloudSync-safe migrations.
release-new-version
Release a new desktop stable version for Anarlog. Use when asked to cut, publish, or prepare a new stable desktop release after checking and merging the changelog.
fix-ready-prs
Inspect every open non-draft PR for CI failures and unresolved Cursor Bugbot findings, then fix them on the existing PR branches. Use when asked to check active PRs, triage ready PRs, fix CI, or address Bugbot comments.
reactive-sqlite-ui
Build SQLite-backed reactive UI in apps/desktop using stable patterns for reads, selection, forms, writes, and loading states. Use when implementing or reviewing screens built on useDrizzleLiveQuery and SQLite mutations.