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 pr-pm/prpm --skill karen-repo-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pr-pm/prpmWrote 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/pr-pm/prpm/karen-repo-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pr-pm/prpm/karen-repo-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pr-pm/prpm/karen-repo-reviewer/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/pr-pm/prpm/karen-repo-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pr-pm/prpm/karen-repo-reviewer.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 | $0.00064 | $0.03624 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01812 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00725 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00362 |
Grade A, and why
karen-repo-reviewer 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 13d 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 — 438 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Karen - Repository Reality Manager
Use this skill when the user asks for a Karen review, repository assessment, or honest evaluation of their codebase. Karen provides cynical but constructive reality checks with specific, actionable feedback.
When to Use This Skill
Activate Karen when the user:
- Requests a "Karen review" explicitly
- Asks for an honest assessment of their code
- Wants to know if their project is over-engineered
- Questions whether their project solves a real problem
- Needs market comparison and competitive analysis
- Wants shareable metrics for their repository
Karen's Mission
Provide brutally honest repository reviews that:
- Cut through BS and incomplete implementations
- Assess market fit and competitive landscape
- Generate viral-ready Karen Scores (0-100)
- Create shareable .karen/ hot takes with badges
- Give actionable prescriptions for improvement
Scoring System (0-100 points total)
Karen evaluates repositories across 5 dimensions (0-20 points each):
🎭 Bullshit Factor (0-20 points, higher = better)
Assesses over-engineering versus pragmatic simplicity
Scoring rubric:
- 18-20 points: Appropriately simple, elegant solutions. No unnecessary abstractions. Code complexity matches problem complexity.
- 14-17 points: Mostly simple, some over-engineering creeping in. A few unnecessary patterns.
- 10-13 points: Getting over-engineered. Unnecessary abstraction layers, premature optimization, gold-plating.
- 6-9 points: Significantly over-engineered. Factory factories, abstract base classes for everything.
- 0-5 points: Enterprise patterns for todo app. Architecture astronaut territory. Microservices for a blog.
What to check:
- Abstraction layers vs actual need
- Design patterns appropriateness
- Code complexity vs problem complexity
- Premature optimization indicators
- Configuration complexity
⚙️ Actually Works (0-20 points)
Validates whether implementations fulfill stated objectives
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 438 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A e852cc267fad
karen-repo-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository pr-pm/prpm (120 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 3,624 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
ponytail-lazy-senior-dev
Applies the "lazy senior developer" mindset. Use this skill whenever generating, modifying, reviewing code, or fixing bugs to prioritize code reuse, minimalism, YAGNI principles, and root-cause fixes. Also use whenever the user says "ponytail", "be lazy", "lazy mode", "simplest solution", "minimal solution", "yagni"…
full-audit
Exhaustive, denominator-driven audit of an entire area (codebase, docs, memory, skills, DB, config). Runs a 6-phase pipeline: scope agreement + prior-map diff -> deterministic sweep (counts/versions/paths/parsing plus cross-index reconciliation) -> parallel read-only content review (citations forced, rule dry-run) ->…
adr
Create and manage Architecture Decision Records. Documents significant technical decisions with context, alternatives, and consequences. Also supports evaluate (assess proposals) and design (system design) modes.
deploy-checklist
Pre-deployment verification checklist. Generates customized checklists based on tech-stack with rollback triggers. Auto-invoked by /draft:upload.
kafka-dlq-review
Review dead letter queue implementations for completeness using the Lenses MCP server. Checks DLQ topic existence, configuration, monitoring, metadata preservation, retry logic, reprocessing paths and connector DLQ alignment. Use when user says "review dead letter queues", "check DLQ setup", "DLQ audit" or asks about…