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 RashadAnsari/myagents --skill reportloopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RashadAnsari/myagentsWrote 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/rashadansari/myagents/reportloop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rashadansari/myagents/reportloop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rashadansari/myagents/reportloop/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/rashadansari/myagents/reportloop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rashadansari/myagents/reportloop.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 | $0.00039 | $0.01102 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00441 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00220 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
reportloop 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 yesterday.
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 — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Report Loop
Read REVIEW_REPORT.md, walk through every issue one by one, explain it, ask the user to fix or skip, handle follow-up questions, apply fixes, and write the outcome of every decision back into the report.
Step 1: Load the Report
Read REVIEW_REPORT.md from the project root. If it does not exist, stop and tell the user to run /reviewcrew first.
Parse all issues across all sections. For each issue, check whether it already carries a status marker (see Step 3d for the format). Issues that already have a status were handled in a previous session.
Collect all issues into two lists:
- Pending: issues with no status marker, sorted: CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM → LOW. Within each severity, preserve report order.
- Already processed: issues that already have a status marker (FIXED, SKIPPED, AUTO-ADVANCED).
Step 2: Show Progress Header
Before starting, tell the user:
- Total issue count (pending + already processed)
- Breakdown of pending issues by severity (CRITICAL: N, HIGH: N, MEDIUM: N, LOW: N)
- Count of already-processed issues (if any), with a note that they will be skipped unless the user asks to revisit
- That they can say "fix", "skip", "skip all [severity]", or ask any question about the issue
Step 3: Process Each Issue
For each pending issue, repeat this loop:
3a: Read the Code
Before presenting the issue to the user, read the file and line referenced in the issue. Understand the actual code in context.
3b: Present the Issue
Show clearly:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
Issue N of TOTAL [SEVERITY]
─────────────────────────────────────────────
File: path/to/file:line
Category: <review category>
Issue: <description from report>
Explanation:
<2-4 sentences explaining: what the problem is, why it matters,
and what the fix would look like: written for the specific code
you just read, not the generic description from the report>
3c: Ask the User
Ask: Fix this issue? Options:
- Fix: apply the fix now
- Skip: leave it, move to next issue
- Skip remaining [severity]: skip all remaining issues at this severity level
- Question: user wants to discuss before deciding
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.
- yesterday First seen · 96 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 829dc9fd5220
reportloop is a skill published in the GitHub repository RashadAnsari/myagents (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,102 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-10-15.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review a diff against its acceptance criteria in four segments (convention adherence, bug scan, historical-context regressions, test-coverage gaps) as a NON-implementing agent. Findings are sorted by severity, each with file:line + a failure scenario. A planted defect must be caught; a clean diff must not be…
design-review
Five-dimension design audit (frontend UI/UX · server data-model & flow · endpoint spec · daemon-runtime/SDK & local-cache-first · built-in skill/agent-role), executed by a NON-implementing agent. Every dimension gets a verdict; N/A only with a stated reason. A dimension the design silently skipped must be surfaced as…
codebase-design
Design maintainable module interfaces, review scoped code changes, and simplify implementations with behavioral verification. Use for code review, cleanup, testability, and module design work.
prismer-github
GitHub via gh CLI: PRs, issues, reviews, repos, auth.
requirements-authoring-flow
Workflow for authoring requirements and specifications: drafting, review, validation, etc.
pr-reviewer
Review a requested pull request, branch diff or completed task against its actual scope, source and checks. Prepare evidence and comments; post or record a human verdict only when explicitly authorized.