Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to priyanshuchawda/tracepilot-gemini-cli. 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/priyanshuchawda/tracepilot-gemini-cli/main/.gemini/skills/string-reviewer/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/priyanshuchawda/tracepilot-gemini-cliWrote 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/priyanshuchawda/tracepilot-gemini-cli/string-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/priyanshuchawda/tracepilot-gemini-cli/string-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/priyanshuchawda/tracepilot-gemini-cli/string-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/priyanshuchawda/tracepilot-gemini-cli/string-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/priyanshuchawda/tracepilot-gemini-cli/string-reviewer.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 | $0.00038 | $0.00951 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00476 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00190 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
string-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 9d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to string-reviewer — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
String Reviewer
Instructions
Act as a Senior UX Writer. Look for user-facing strings that are too long, unclear, or inconsistent. This includes inline text, error messages, and other user-facing text.
Do NOT automatically change strings without user approval. You must only suggest changes and do not attempt to rewrite them directly unless the user explicitly asks you to do so.
Core voice principles
The system prioritizes deterministic clarity over conversational fluff. We provide telemetry, not etiquette, ensuring the user retains absolute agency..
- Deterministic clarity: Distinguish between certain system/service states (Cloud Billing, IAM, the System) and probabilistic AI analysis (Gemini).
- System transparency: Replace "Loading..." with active technical telemetry (e.g., Tracing stack traces...). Keep status updates under 5 words.
- Front-loaded actionability: Always use the [Goal] + [Action] pattern. Lead with intent so users can scan left-to-right.
- Agentic error recovery: Every error must be a pivot point. Pair failures with one-click recovery commands or suggested prompts.
- Contextual humility: Reserve disclaimers and "be careful" warnings for P0 (destructive/irreversible) tasks only. Stop warning-fatigue.
The writing checklist
Use this checklist to audit UI strings and AI responses.
Identity and voice
- Eliminate the "I": Remove all first-person pronouns (I, me, my, mine).
- Subject attribution: Refer to the AI as Gemini and the infrastructure as the - system or the CLI.
- Active voice: Ensure the subject (Gemini or the system) is clearly performing the action.
- Ownership rule: Use the system for execution (doing) and Gemini for analysis (thinking)
Structural scannability
- The skip test: Do the first 3 words describe the user’s intent? If not, rewrite.
- Goal-first sequence: Use the template: [To Accomplish X] + [Do Y].
- The 5-word rule: Keep status updates and loading states under 5 words.
- Telemetry over etiquette: Remove polite filler (Please wait, Thank you, Certainly). Replace with raw data or progress indicators.
- Micro-state cycles: For tasks $> 3$ seconds, cycle through specific sub-states (e.g., Parsing logs... ➔ Identifying patterns...) to show momentum.
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 99 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A ce71381401c4
string-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository priyanshuchawda/tracepilot-gemini-cli (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 951 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to string-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-and-quality
Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.
code-graph-review
Use BEFORE a commit or change review, when you need to understand "what this N-file change will break": blast radius over the diff, affected execution paths, dead code, architectural hubs/bridges, weak spots, rename with preview. Do not use for code search — CRG is for structural diff analysis, not navigation.
fable-judge
Adversarial verification of finished work: re-runs the claimed verifications, diffs what changed, detects false "done" claims, delivers an evidence-based verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH CAVEATS / REFUTED). Use after any agent or model claims work is complete — "/fable-judge", "judge this work", "verify what it did".…
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…