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 PSPDFKit-labs/pi-skills --skill multi-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PSPDFKit-labs/pi-skillsWrote 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/pspdfkit-labs/pi-skills/multi-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pspdfkit-labs/pi-skills/multi-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pspdfkit-labs/pi-skills/multi-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/pspdfkit-labs/pi-skills/multi-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pspdfkit-labs/pi-skills/multi-review.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 | $0.00024 | $0.01340 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00670 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00268 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00134 |
Grade A, and why
multi-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 10d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 148 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 107197a364f8
multi-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository PSPDFKit-labs/pi-skills (17 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,340 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
fabric-spec
Starts a persistent Pi Fabric spec supervisor that audits the main session against a feature design spec and steers only when a requirement lacks verified evidence. Use for strict, unblocked spec compliance while the main agent keeps full freedom to orchestrate.
fabric-advisor
Starts a persistent Pi Fabric peer advisor that reviews the main agent at decision points and surfaces only concrete, material advice. Use for ambient correctness review without another extension.
review-harness
Use when reviewing implementation work that ran through a /tmp Pi task harness. Checks contract drift, unsafe shortcuts, validation evidence, and status honesty.
speq-code-review
Code review tag taxonomy and findings output format — guardrail violations, dead code, test quality, bad comments, optimizations, YAGNI/over-engineering, error handling, and design depth. Triggered by code-reviewer.
pr-review
Review GitHub pull requests critically and contextually, including first reviews, re-reviews after requested changes, external reviewer or bot feedback, codebase-fit checks, validation, inline comment drafts, and merge decisions. Use when reviewing a PR, checking whether review comments were addressed, evaluating…
maintainer-reply
Draft concise, natural, context-aware public replies to GitHub issues, pull requests, reviews, and contributor follow-ups. Use when replying to a contributor, preparing an issue or PR comment, thanking or apologizing publicly, explaining a project decision, or composing a response that must fit an existing…