Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add ramboz/jig/plugin install jigWrote 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/ramboz/jig/independent-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ramboz/jig/independent-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ramboz/jig/independent-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/ramboz/jig/independent-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ramboz/jig/independent-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 | $0.00096 | $0.04695 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.02348 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00939 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00470 |
Grade A, and why
independent-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 11d 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 — 379 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Working posture (ADR-0056). Adversarial review is a named, bounded operation. The skeptical, flaw-hunting register this skill builds belongs inside the review passes — they run in isolated reviewer subagents whose context is discarded. Outside a review, default to collaborative and solution-forward; don't carry the adversarial stance into ordinary conversation.
Spec 004 promoted this skill from stub to active. The prompt is constructed by
review.py; Claude owns the Task invocation.
What this skill does
Constructs the standardized reviewer-subagent prompt and tells Claude when / how to spawn the Task. The skill has four modes, matching the review passes every slice may run:
- Implementation review — after the implementer writes the deliverable to
disk. The reviewer evaluates each acceptance criterion against the actual
files; returns
pass | fail | needs-changes. This is the compliance pass in spec-workflow's multi-pass flow. - Pr-review (craft pass) — slice 031-01. After the compliance pass
returns, the orchestrator runs a craft-pass review that produces the
four-bucket output (scope / blockers / nits / strengths) the
jig:pr-reviewskill emits, wrapped in the same verdict envelope as the compliance pass. SPECIFIC ISSUES entries are tagged[blocker]/[nit]/[strength]so the workflow can decide what blocks the REVIEWED transition vs. what becomes a reconciliation-log entry. - Arch-review (architecture pass — on-demand) — slice 031-02. After
the craft pass returns, the orchestrator queries the slice's
arch_review:frontmatter flag viaworkflow.py arch-review-needed; whentrue, it runs an arch pass producing the four-bucket output (summary / strengths / concerns / open questions) thejig:arch-reviewskill emits, in the same verdict envelope. Slice authors setarch_review: truein the slice's frontmatter when the slice changes module boundaries, public contracts, or architecture-shaped concerns; the slice template attemplates/docs/specs/slice-template.mdships the field commented out as a discoverability nudge. - Design-review (attest-only pass — on-demand) — slice 071-01 /
ADR-0022. After the craft (+ arch) passes, the orchestrator queries the
slice's
design_review:flag viaworkflow.py design-review-needed; whentrue, it runs an attest-only pass: the read-only reviewer attests an external, non-deterministic design-fidelity eval's frozen verdict (e.g. servo's.servo/design-eval/composite ≥ its own threshold, non-stale,env_error≠ pass) and records pass/fail — it never re-runs or re-derives the score (servo runs/scores, jig attests). Gates REVIEWED like arch. Authors setdesign_review: truewhen the slice ships UI gated by an external design-fidelity eval — and the slice body must point at where the eval evidence lives (the frozen config + threshold and the results ledger), since the reviewer can only attest a verdict it can locate; with no pointer it has nothing to read and records afail. - Reconciliation review — after the deviation log is written. The reviewer verifies the doc changes match reality; does NOT re-review the ACs.
review.py builds the prompt text; agents/reviewer.md defines the agent's
tool restrictions and persistent system rules.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 379 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A ddd3ff5384c5
independent-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ramboz/jig (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 4,695 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Plan-aware graph-enhanced code review before merge. CRITICAL issues block merge. Use after fix/verify.
flutter-dart-code-review
Library-agnostic Flutter/Dart code review checklist covering widget best practices, state management patterns (BLoC, Riverpod, Provider, GetX, MobX, Signals), Dart idioms, performance, accessibility, security, and clean architecture.
onboarding
Skill "onboarding" from knitli/toolshed, covering codeweaver first-run onboarding, your goal, setup flow, 1. welcome & overview and 2. embedding provider selection.
setup
Skill "setup" from knitli/toolshed, covering codeweaver setup / reconfiguration, your goal, setup flow, 1. welcome & context and 2. embedding provider selection.
code-review
Use to review diffs and PRs for bugs, regressions, edge cases, proof, merge readiness.
.codex
Skill ".codex" from knitli/toolshed, covering context hygiene skill, name, description, instructions and 1. discovery.