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 prime-radiant-inc/greenfield --skill second-pass-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/prime-radiant-inc/greenfieldWrote 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/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-review/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/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/prime-radiant-inc/greenfield/second-pass-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Rogue Agent · line 8 Skill establishes unauthorized persistence across sessions via cron jobs, startup scripts, or state files. Session persistence allows an attacker to maintain access beyond the current interaction.Fix: Remove any persistence mechanisms (cron jobs, startup scripts, state files). Skills should not maintain state across sessions without explicit user consent.
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 | $0.00044 | $0.05372 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.02686 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.01074 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00537 |
Grade A, and why
second-pass-review 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 — 473 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Second-Pass Review (Layer 6)
Sanitization is necessary but insufficient. The author of a sanitized spec can't reliably catch their own leaks — the same assumptions that let implementation details slip in during the rewrite also let them slip past a self-review. A fresh read, with no access to the raw analysis, catches drift the author missed.
Why This Exists
Sanitization alone misses contamination in predictable categories:
- Structural leakage: Module names in Part headers, cross-module dependency tables, module counts carried into the output
- Content contamination: Minified identifiers, line number references, IPC channel names, state-store selectors, internal filenames
- Behavioral completeness: Usually passes, because completeness is the easiest dimension to check
Root causes:
- Sanitization agents copy-paste instead of rewriting
- Gate 2 flags "zero leakage" but never defines what to look for
- Grep patterns can't catch descriptive English identifiers
- Without a second-pass review, authors can't catch their own blind spots
Audit Pipeline
digraph audit_pipeline {
rankdir=TB;
compound=true;
"Layer 5 sanitization complete" [shape=doublecircle];
"Audit PASS — proceed to implementation" [shape=doublecircle];
"STOP: Audit failed after 3 remediation attempts" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];
subgraph cluster_specialist {
label="Parallel Specialist Reviewers (read every file, apply semantic checklists)";
style=dashed;
"structural-leakage-reviewer" [shape=box];
"content-contamination-reviewer" [shape=box];
"behavioral-completeness-reviewer" [shape=box];
}
subgraph cluster_generalist {
label="Parallel Deep-Read Generalists (4-5 files each, full contextual judgment)";
style=dashed;
"deep-read-auditor-1" [shape=box];
"deep-read-auditor-2" [shape=box];
"deep-read-auditor-N" [shape=box];
}
"Merge all audit reports" [shape=box];
"Any FAIL?" [shape=diamond];
"Dispatch targeted fix agents" [shape=box];
"Re-audit failing files" [shape=box];
"Attempts < 3?" [shape=diamond];
"Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "structural-leakage-reviewer";
"Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "content-contamination-reviewer";
"Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "behavioral-completeness-reviewer";
"Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "deep-read-auditor-1";
"Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "deep-read-auditor-2";
"Layer 5 sanitization complete" -> "deep-read-auditor-N";
"structural-leakage-reviewer" -> "Merge all audit reports";
"content-contamination-reviewer" -> "Merge all audit reports";
"behavioral-completeness-reviewer" -> "Merge all audit reports";
"deep-read-auditor-1" -> "Merge all audit reports";
"deep-read-auditor-2" -> "Merge all audit reports";
"deep-read-auditor-N" -> "Merge all audit reports";
"Merge all audit reports" -> "Any FAIL?";
"Any FAIL?" -> "Audit PASS — proceed to implementation" [label="all PASS"];
"Any FAIL?" -> "Dispatch targeted fix agents" [label="any FAIL"];
"Dispatch targeted fix agents" -> "Re-audit failing files";
"Re-audit failing files" -> "Attempts < 3?";
"Attempts < 3?" -> "structural-leakage-reviewer" [label="yes"];
"Attempts < 3?" -> "STOP: Audit failed after 3 remediation attempts" [label="no"];
}
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 · 473 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A ba1eef11a9fa
second-pass-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository prime-radiant-inc/greenfield (277 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 5,372 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
check-pr
Read-only inspection of a single GitHub PR lifecycle — checks CI, review threads, description sync, and mergeability, and returns PASS or FAIL with per-gate findings. Never invokes the merge button. Use when verifying a PR is ready to merge, polling lifecycle progress, checking mergeability, or babysitting a GitHub PR…
codex-review
Get an independent code review from OpenAI Codex (GPT-5) on uncommitted changes, a branch diff, a PR, or a specific module — returns findings grouped by severity with file:line references. Use when the user says "review this", "review my changes", "check this PR", "what did I miss", or before they commit or merge…
pwn-ai-agent-sast
Drive PWN::AI::Agent::SAST from pwneval.
github-pr-creation
Creates GitHub Pull Requests with automated validation and task tracking. Use when user wants to create PR, open pull request, submit for review, or check if ready for PR. Analyzes commits, validates task completion, generates Conventional Commits title and description, suggests labels. NOTE - for merging existing…