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 randommonicle/claude-skills --skill cross-agent-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/randommonicle/claude-skillsWrote 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/randommonicle/claude-skills/cross-agent-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/randommonicle/claude-skills/cross-agent-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/randommonicle/claude-skills/cross-agent-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/randommonicle/claude-skills/cross-agent-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/randommonicle/claude-skills/cross-agent-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 | $0.00154 | $0.02949 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00077 | $0.01474 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00590 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00295 |
Grade A, and why
cross-agent-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 — 165 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Cross-agent review
Two or more DIFFERENT AI agents (Claude here, the hub; plus one or more the user operates, e.g. Gemini
or GPT in Antigravity) review one change by appending to a shared file, each forced to cite and to
concede on evidence. The value over a solo review: an independent model catches what you are too close
to, and you catch its mistakes, so a claim only survives if it survives the other agent. First run:
PropOS, 2026-08-09 (five exchanges, one external agent). Second run: PropOS, 2026-08-25 (cross-firm
isolation, four seats at once: Gemini 3.1 Pro, Gemini 3.7 Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT), which added
the multi-seat handle model, the hub-and-spoke turn rule, and the tracked-scaffolding git split below.
Composes with findings-are-evidence, verified-citations, live-state-first, server-side-authority,
confirm-before-push.
The reusable scaffolding (protocol, kickoffs, review template) is bundled in templates/ next to this
file. Copy it into the exchange dir rather than retyping the rules from prose.
When to use, and when not
Use for a SCOPED target: one migration, one finding, one design decision, one document's claims. Three modes, all the same machinery:
- Challenger-external: the other agent(s) produce findings, Claude verifies and rebuts.
- Challenger-Claude: Claude puts up a claim or a provisional verdict, the other agent(s) attack it.
- Peer design: all sides propose and critique a design; expected to diverge.
It scales to several independent seats at once (different models), which sharpens completeness work
because each model hunts blind to what the others surface. Not for whole-project audits (use
committee-review), and not for a quick check you can do yourself in one pass. It costs each agent's
tokens per round and a human in the loop to drive the external agents.
Handles: how several models stay distinct and never reply to themselves
Every participant holds exactly ONE handle for the whole exchange, and a handle is a SEAT, not a model: if two chats run the same model they still get different handles.
CLAUDE= the hub, in this repo.BEN(or the operator's name) = the human.- Each external chat = a distinct handle assigned in its kickoff:
GEMPRO,GEMFLASH,SONNET,GPT.
What ships with it
4 files 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 · 165 lines · 154 tokens per session scan A afefbd0a0992
cross-agent-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository randommonicle/claude-skills (23 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 154 tokens to every session and 2,949 once invoked, about $0.0008 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…