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 PostHog/posthog-foss --skill reviewing-personhog-protocolgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PostHog/posthog-fossWrote 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/posthog/posthog-foss/reviewing-personhog-protocol)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/posthog/posthog-foss/reviewing-personhog-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/posthog/posthog-foss/reviewing-personhog-protocol/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/posthog/posthog-foss/reviewing-personhog-protocol"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/posthog/posthog-foss/reviewing-personhog-protocol.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 | $0.00111 | $0.02040 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.01020 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00408 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00204 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-personhog-protocol 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 12d 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 — 159 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing personhog protocol changes
Protocol defects survive ordinary review because every component looks correct in isolation — the bugs live in compositions: an authority signal nobody observes during one await, a threshold that coincides with a detector's duration, a rarely-taken exit path that skips the fence. This skill encodes the process that has actually caught them, and the full set of layers a personhog change must clear before it ships.
The process: two passes, then verification
- Author pass. Sweep the full diff against every lens dimension below. Read final files, not hunks — composed state is where the bugs are.
- Independent adversarial pass. Spawn a cold-context agent on the
full diff. Give it the protocol invariants
(references/personhog-invariants.md)
and the lens dimensions — never your conclusions or your fixes'
rationale, which would anchor it. Demand: ranked findings with
file:line, a one-sentence defect statement, a concrete failure scenario (inputs/state → wrong outcome), and a CONFIRMED (traced end-to-end) or PLAUSIBLE (missing check named) label. Ask it to state clean dimensions in one line each — silence is not coverage. - Author verification. Verify every finding against code before accepting it. Findings get upgraded, downgraded, or killed with evidence — never adopted on authority. A wrong finding fixed is a new defect introduced.
- After a fix batch, review again. Fresh agent, full scope, with the fix batch named as the primary attack surface: new code is where new bugs live, and a fix can displace a defect instead of closing it. Ask for a per-finding CLOSED / DISPLACED / STILL OPEN verdict.
The lens dimensions
For each, the question to ask — not a checkbox, a hunt:
- Authority transitions × in-flight work. Enumerate every writer × key × guard. For each transition of serving authority (acquire, release, fence, deregister): what work is in flight across it, and what guarantees it lands on the right side? Never dismiss a race on likelihood — protocol review argues structure, not odds.
- Observation latency. A prompt failure signal nobody is listening to is a deferred fence. Enumerate every await a component makes while holding authority (lease, registration, serving state) and ask: is the authority-loss signal raced here, or does this await defer detection for its full duration? Backoff naps, drains, and bootstrap sequences are where this hides.
- Timescale interactions. Build the full constants table (TTLs, heartbeats, margins, budgets × intervals, timeouts, deadlines, watchdogs, produce/message timeouts) and check pairwise interactions. Two smells: a threshold that equals a detector's duration (the detector's failures become structurally exempt from the threshold), and a margin whose consumer can outspend it (a fence bounded by a timeout larger than the runway). Validate required relations at construction, not in comments.
- Budget and counter semantics. What resets what, and on which evidence? Progress must mean applied work — never a successful read, which stays available in exactly the wedges budgets exist for. Ask both directions: can a wedge class cycle forever without escalating, and can a transient class escalate spuriously?
- Lifecycle. Every spawned task joined or aborted on every exit path; raced JoinHandles consumed at most once with every later await site guarded; cancel-by-drop assumptions verified (dropping a loop future drops its owned futures — but never its spawned tasks); teardown ordering stated and tested. The bootstrap window — registered but not yet supervised — is an exit-path zoo of its own.
- Primitive semantics, verified against implementation. What does
the primitive actually do — not what its name suggests?
select!short-circuits on first ready arm;FuturesUnorderedonly progresses when polled; a keepalive response proves a reset at send-processing time, not receipt time; stream end and lease expiry are different facts; etcd answers keepalives for a dead lease with TTL 0, not a closed stream. When in doubt, read the dependency's source. - Failure-path parity. The rarely-taken exits — budget exhaustion, timeouts, poison paths, fast-shutdown branches — must uphold the same invariants as the hot path. "The fence exists" is not enough; it must run on every path that drops authority, in the right order relative to deregistration.
- Escalation legibility. Fail loudly and attributably: a crash cascade that shows up as generic restarts is loud but illegible. Every deliberate escalation should carry the specific cause (which partition, which budget, which margin) in its metric labels and logs.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 159 lines · 111 tokens per session scan A 0f43f0e7cef8
reviewing-personhog-protocol is a skill published in the GitHub repository PostHog/posthog-foss (715 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 111 tokens to every session and 2,040 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…