Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to pvliesdonk/scholar-mcp. 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/pvliesdonk/scholar-mcp/main/.agents/skills/self-reviewing/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pvliesdonk/scholar-mcpWrote 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/pvliesdonk/scholar-mcp/self-reviewing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pvliesdonk/scholar-mcp/self-reviewing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pvliesdonk/scholar-mcp/self-reviewing/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/pvliesdonk/scholar-mcp/self-reviewing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pvliesdonk/scholar-mcp/self-reviewing.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 | $0.00069 | $0.03254 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.01302 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00651 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00325 |
Grade A, and why
self-reviewing 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 23d 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
94% identical to self-reviewing — 35 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 — 274 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Self-review
This skill is the local self-review a change gets before its diff becomes someone else's problem: before a reviewer reads it, before a hosted bot spends the maintainer's tokens on it, before a fix costs a public push. It produces a findings report — it is not a gate. It never grants or withholds permission to push, and no ruleset requires it; deterministic CI remains the only merge gate. What it asks instead is honest convergence: every finding you report gets fixed or explicitly justified, in writing, before the push.
The review confirms preparation; it rarely discovers. Every criterion below is derived from files already open to you — the rules files, the diff, the code's own comments, the git history — so a clean first pass over a diff you wrote carefully is the normal outcome, not a lucky one.
When to run
- Before
gh pr create(or your agent's equivalent) on a fresh branch. - Before flipping a draft PR to ready.
- Before any push that updates a branch with an open PR.
- On request, against any named PR, branch, or range.
Small diffs are cheap to review; "docs-only" and "obvious" diffs are where contradicted comments and rule violations hide. Run it anyway.
Select the range
Review the cumulative diff — the same one every post-push reviewer sees — never "since my last push".
- Resolve the base ref, in this order of authority:
- the base the invoker explicitly named — an explicit instruction beats recorded metadata (a stacked PR may need a comparison GitHub's recorded base does not give);
- otherwise the PR's actual base branch, when a PR exists
(
gh pr view --json baseRefName); - only as fallback, derive it: the nearest of
origin/<default>,origin/release/*andorigin/integration/*by ancestry (the same derivationscripts/structural_gate.shuses). Never assumemain: a PR targetingrelease/X.Yor a stacked PR reviewed against the default branch sweeps in the base branch's whole divergence or misses the backport's scope. Anintegration/<epic>→mainPR is the one exception to reviewing the whole range as new: every child was reviewed on its way into the integration branch. Review what those reviews could not see — the conflict resolutions in each merge ofmain(git log --remerge-diff --merges "origin/$BASE_REF..HEAD", git 2.36+), semantic conflicts withmain, whether the children fit together and the docs describe the finished result, and the release impact (breaking markers, theCloseslines).docs/deployment/integration-branches.mdcovers the rebased case.
- Compute and check the endpoints before reviewing:
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.
- 23d ago First seen · 274 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A 1a80b12b6bb8
self-reviewing is a skill published in the GitHub repository pvliesdonk/scholar-mcp (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 3,254 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to self-reviewing, differing in 35 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
github-commenting
How to post clean, rich, deduplicated GitHub PR review comments — suggestion blocks, multi-line anchors, markers, formatting rules. Load before posting or fixing any PR comment.
pr
Create a pull request using the Dedalus PR template. Injects git state, commit history, and diff stats automatically.
reviewing-update-sets
Reviewing, analyzing, and comparing ServiceNow update sets before promotion, singly or in batches. Shows changes, risks, dependencies, and conflicts. Use when the user mentions update sets, customizations, promotion, code review, change tracking, pre-deployment review, sysupdatexml, customer updates, 'what changed in…
papi-build
Invoke when executing a build via buildexecute. Covers branching, gestalt pre-build check, and post-build audit.
papi-auto
Continue an approved PAPI cycle through implementation, verification and review using bounded autonomy. Resume durable work without rebuilding it; propose new scope before persisting it.
pr-reviewer
Review a requested pull request, branch diff or completed task against its actual scope, source and checks. Prepare evidence and comments; post or record a human verdict only when explicitly authorized.