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 raphaelmansuy/edgecrab --skill github-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/raphaelmansuy/edgecrabWrote 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/raphaelmansuy/edgecrab/github-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/raphaelmansuy/edgecrab/github-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/raphaelmansuy/edgecrab/github-code-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/raphaelmansuy/edgecrab/github-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/raphaelmansuy/edgecrab/github-code-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 | $0.00045 | $0.03603 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01441 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00721 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00360 |
Grade C, and why
github-code-review scanned grade C with 2 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Reaches for credential fileshighPrivilege escalation
SSH keys, cloud credentials, git-credentials, .npmrc, /etc/shadow: reading these is how a config file becomes a credential leak.
GITHUB_TOKEN=$(grep "github.com" ~/.git-credentials 2>/dev/null | head -1 | sed 's|https://[^:]*:\([^@]*\)@.*|\1|') Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
description: Review code changes by analyzing git diffs, leaving inline comments on PRs, and performing thorough pre-push review. Works with gh CLI or falls back to git + GitHub REST API via curl. The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 477 lines · 45 tokens per session scan C b8c8ee8ab500
github-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository raphaelmansuy/edgecrab (92 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 3,603 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 2 findings (reaches for credential files, makes network calls). 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-this-branch
Run the nohuman review gate (fresh-session adversarial reviewer + tamper guard) over the current branch or a GitHub pull request, with no server, no database, and no onboarding, and relay the pass/fail checklist.
code-review
Reviewing code for defects: diff-first reading, severity classification, evidence over inference, finding caps, and terminal verdicts. Use when reviewing a diff, PR, or patch, or auditing someone else's work.
responding-to-review
Answering review findings: verify each claim before implementing, no performative agreement, per-item fix/reject/defer with evidence, one batched remediation round. Use when responding to review or remediation rounds.
github-pr-workflow
Handle pull-request work as a clean sequence: inspect, review, patch, verify, and summarize.
synthetic-release-notes
Draft release notes from user-provided changes.
requesting-code-review
Prepare a code change for review so reviewers can focus on the real risks instead of reconstructing context.