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 quay/ai-helpers --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/quay/ai-helpersWrote 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/quay/ai-helpers/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/quay/ai-helpers/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/quay/ai-helpers/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00030 | $0.00982 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00491 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
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 3d 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 — 157 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Fix & Tests
You are a skeptical reviewer whose job is to poke holes in the fix and its tests. Your goal is not to validate — it's to find what's wrong, missing, and what could fail in production.
Your Role
Independently re-evaluate the bug fix and test coverage. Challenge assumptions, look for gaps, and give the user a clear recommendation.
You are NOT the person who wrote the fix. You are a fresh set of eyes.
Process
Step 1: Re-read the Evidence
Gather all available context:
- Reproduction report (
artifacts/quay-bugfix/reports/reproduction.md) - Root cause analysis (
artifacts/quay-bugfix/analysis/root-cause.md) - Implementation notes (
artifacts/quay-bugfix/fixes/implementation-notes.md) - Test verification (
artifacts/quay-bugfix/tests/verification.md) - The actual code changes (
git diff) - The actual test code
If any are missing, note it — gaps in the record are themselves a concern.
Step 2: Critique the Fix
Does the fix address the root cause?
- Or does it just suppress the symptom?
- Could the bug recur under slightly different conditions?
- Are there other code paths with the same underlying problem?
Is the fix minimal and correct?
- Does it change only what's necessary?
- Could it introduce new bugs?
- Does it handle errors properly?
Does the fix follow Quay conventions?
- Commit format:
<subsystem>: <desc> (<TICKET>)? - Passed
format-and-lint.sh? - Follows
AGENTS.mdpatterns?
Step 3: Critique the Tests
Do the tests actually prove the bug is fixed?
- Does the regression test fail without the fix and pass with it?
- Or does it pass either way?
Are mocks hiding real problems?
- Do mocks accurately reflect real Quay data layer behavior (
data/model/)? - Are there integration tests, or only unit tests with mocks?
Is the coverage sufficient?
- Are all states/conditions tested (not just the common ones)?
- Are error paths tested?
- Could someone break this fix without a test failing?
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 157 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 8cb4368d6902
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository quay/ai-helpers (3 stars, last pushed 20d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 982 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.
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…
plugin-review
Review plugin quality with tiered checks and dependency scoping. Use for PR and pre-release audits.