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 rajnandan1/ken --skill ken-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rajnandan1/kenWrote 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/rajnandan1/ken/ken-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rajnandan1/ken/ken-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rajnandan1/ken/ken-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/rajnandan1/ken/ken-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rajnandan1/ken/ken-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 | $0.00033 | $0.00590 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00236 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
ken-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 2d 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
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 54 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A d39da5432f5d
ken-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository rajnandan1/ken (10 stars, last pushed 22d ago), with no licence file. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 590 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-10-14.
Other skills, from other repositories
signals-scout-skills-store
Skill-hygiene scout for the team's PostHog skills store. Watches recently-changed and most- used skills for authoring violations — vague descriptions, bloated bodies, dead file links, kitchen-sink scope, committed secrets.
review-hog-authoring
How to author custom PostHog Review skills: the review perspectives, blind-spot checks, validation criteria, and resolution criteria that drive PostHog Review's automated PR reviews. Use when a user wants a new review perspective (a specialist lens on their PRs), a custom blind-spot sweep, their own validation bar for…
review-hog-resolution-criteria
The resolution criteria for PostHog Review's resolution stage: the bar for deciding, per unresolved review thread, whether the ask is worth implementing and safe to implement unattended. Implements contained, provable fixes; declines noise with a reason; escalates real-but-risky asks to a human.
review-hog-perspective-contracts-security
The Contracts & Security review perspective for PostHog Review. Verifies that changed code is safe and maintains compatibility: API contracts and breaking changes, injection / authz / data exposure, input validation, and schema / interface alignment. Reports security and contract issues only.
review-hog-perspective-logic-correctness
The Logic & Correctness review perspective for PostHog Review. Verifies that changed code does what it is supposed to do: business logic, edge cases, data transformations, and query / data-access correctness. Reports correctness issues only; security and performance are separate perspectives.
review-hog-perspective-performance-reliability
The Performance & Reliability review perspective for PostHog Review. Verifies that changed code will perform and hold up in production: resource efficiency, error handling and recovery, scalability, and operational readiness. Reports performance and reliability issues only.