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 redhat-developer/rhdh-skills --skill rhdh-pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/redhat-developer/rhdh-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/redhat-developer/rhdh-skills/rhdh-pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/redhat-developer/rhdh-skills/rhdh-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/redhat-developer/rhdh-skills/rhdh-pr-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/redhat-developer/rhdh-skills/rhdh-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/redhat-developer/rhdh-skills/rhdh-pr-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 | $0.00081 | $0.00653 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00327 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00065 |
Grade A, and why
rhdh-pr-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 — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
RHDH Pull Request Review
Keep forge I/O at the edges: fetch produces the PR context, analysis works from that context and checked-out code alone, and posting sends only findings already verified against the head SHA.
Route by outcome
| Outcome | Workflow sequence |
|---|---|
| Code review and post | workflows/fetch-github.md → workflows/review-code.md → workflows/post-to-github.md |
| Analysis only | workflows/fetch-github.md → workflows/review-code.md; stop after the edited draft |
A bare PR URL or number defaults to code review and post.
Review invariants
/code-reviewis required on every draft-review path, including analysis-only. If it is missing, stop, say thatcode-reviewis missing, name/setup-rhdh-skills install, and do not substitute a local two-axis review.- Every
/code-reviewrun also dispatches Adversarial. Team, worktree, and draft steps live inworkflows/review-code.md. - Present the complete edited draft before stating any post operation. An explicit request to post is intent, not approval of the exact write.
Write gate
Fetch and analysis are read-only. Posting a GitHub review is an external write:
invoke the named skill mutation-gate and follow the gate it owns rather than
restating it here. Creating or removing a local git worktree is not that gate.
A review operation's target pins the head SHA. An earlier confirmation of findings approves no write. Report each outcome with the review URL, the verification done, and any recovery still owed.
What each stage carries forward
Every stage passes its result to the next in conversation. The field names are defined once, where they are produced:
| Stage | Result | Defined in |
|---|---|---|
| Fetch | PR context: repository, changeRequest, files, diff, linkedIssues, jiraKeys, existingComments, existingReviews, ciStatus, specSource | workflows/fetch-github.md |
| Analysis | Review draft: changeRequest, summary, verdict, findings, edited, worktreePath | workflows/review-code.md |
What ships with it
6 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 · 64 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A bb45d87637d5
rhdh-pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository redhat-developer/rhdh-skills (16 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 653 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
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…