Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to pingidentity/aic-mcp-server. 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/pingidentity/aic-mcp-server/main/.claude/skills/review-conventions/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pingidentity/aic-mcp-serverWrote 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/pingidentity/aic-mcp-server/review-conventions)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pingidentity/aic-mcp-server/review-conventions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pingidentity/aic-mcp-server/review-conventions/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/pingidentity/aic-mcp-server/review-conventions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pingidentity/aic-mcp-server/review-conventions.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 | $0.00062 | $0.00732 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00146 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
review-conventions 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 1mo 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 — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Conventions
Priority Order
- Security — path traversal, scope correctness, error message leakage
- Correctness — API contract, response formatting, error handling
- Conventions — helper usage, naming, annotations, test structure
- Quality — readability, duplication, edge cases
Tool Implementation Checklist
-
SCOPESdefined as module-level const and passed to both the tool object andmakeAuthenticatedRequest() - All user-provided path segments validated with
safePathSegmentSchema - Uses
makeAuthenticatedRequest()for API calls, never rawfetch - Returns via
createToolResponse(), success responses useformatSuccess(data, response)to include transaction ID - Error handling:
catch (error: any)returningcreateToolResponse('Failed to ...: ${error.message}') - Realm parameters use
z.enum(REALMS)fromvalidationHelpers - Export name follows
<toolName>Toolconvention - DELETE operations have
annotations: { destructiveHint: true } - Idempotent PUT/PATCH operations have
annotations: { idempotentHint: true }
Common Pitfalls
| Pitfall | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Missing path traversal protection | Any ID parameter in a URL path not using safePathSegmentSchema |
| Missing destructiveHint | DELETE or destructive operations without annotations: { destructiveHint: true } |
| Hardcoded scopes | Scopes written inline in makeAuthenticatedRequest() instead of referencing the SCOPES const |
| Raw JSON response | Returning JSON.stringify(data) without formatSuccess() — loses transaction ID |
| Theme data loss | Theme update/delete operations that don't preserve isDefault or other realm data |
| AM helper bypass | AM tools not using buildAMRealmUrl() and AM_API_HEADERS from amHelpers |
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 61 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A ec39c2852e31
review-conventions is a skill published in the GitHub repository pingidentity/aic-mcp-server (2 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 732 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
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…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, 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…