Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to raccioly/docguard. 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/raccioly/docguard/main/.agent/skills/docguard-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/raccioly/docguardWrote 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/raccioly/docguard/docguard-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/raccioly/docguard/docguard-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/raccioly/docguard/docguard-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 4 findings, 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 MCP Rug Pull · line 6 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 52 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 53 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
- medium MCP Rug Pull · line 54 npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
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 | $0.00050 | $0.01858 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00929 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00372 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00186 |
Grade A, and why
docguard-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 8d 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 — 187 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
DocGuard Review Skill
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Goal
Perform a comprehensive, read-only analysis of the project's documentation health. Unlike /docguard.guard (which runs CLI validators), this skill performs semantic analysis — checking whether documentation actually matches the codebase, whether cross-references are consistent, and whether the documentation tells a coherent story.
Operating Constraints
STRICTLY READ-ONLY: Do not modify any files. Output a structured analysis report only. Offer remediation suggestions that the user must explicitly approve before any changes are made.
Execution Flow
Step 1: Gather Documentation Inventory
- List all canonical docs: Read every file in
docs-canonical/ - List support files: Check for
CHANGELOG.md,DRIFT-LOG.md,AGENTS.md,README.md,ROADMAP.md - Check for spec-kit artifacts: If
.specify/exists, includespecs/*/spec.md,specs/*/plan.md,specs/*/tasks.md - Build a document map:
| Document | Exists | Last Modified | Size | Metadata Version |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARCHITECTURE.md | ✅ | 2026-03-14 | 5.2KB | 0.5.0 |
| SECURITY.md | ✅ | 2026-03-14 | 3.1KB | 0.5.0 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Step 2: Run Quantitative Analysis
Execute DocGuard's diagnostic and scoring tools:
npx docguard-cli diagnose 2>&1
npx docguard-cli score 2>&1
npx docguard-cli guard 2>&1
Record:
- Guard pass/fail counts per validator
- CDD maturity score (0-100)
- ALCOA+ compliance attributes
- Category breakdown
Step 3: Semantic Cross-Document Analysis
This is the unique value of the review skill — analysis that CLI validators cannot do.
A. Terminology Consistency
- Extract key technical terms from each document
- Flag terms used differently across documents (e.g., "validator" vs "checker" vs "rule")
- Flag abbreviations used without definition
- Build a de facto glossary
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 187 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 7c256f2a2729
docguard-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository raccioly/docguard (27 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,858 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
review
Adversarial fresh-context review of an increment before it ships. Every finding cites path:line and is re-verified. Use when saying "review", "grill this", or "critique the implementation".
sw-review
Adversarial fresh-context review of an increment before it ships; every finding cites path:line and is re-verified. Use for "review this", "critique the implementation", "review before closing".
go-conventions
Go code conventions covering Effective Go, error wrapping, golangci-lint, govulncheck, table-driven tests, interfaces, context usage, modules, and concurrency. Load when writing or reviewing Go code.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
review
Validate plans, execution, or PRs against wish criteria — returns SHIP / FIX-FIRST / BLOCKED with severity-tagged gaps.