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 renanflustosa/octo-cluster --skill pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/renanflustosa/octo-clusterWrote 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/renanflustosa/octo-cluster/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/renanflustosa/octo-cluster/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/renanflustosa/octo-cluster/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/renanflustosa/octo-cluster/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/renanflustosa/octo-cluster/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 | $0.00053 | $0.00405 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00162 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00081 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
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.
What it actually says
Review Pull Request
Ask mode. Arguments: $ARGUMENTS
If a focus mode is given, adjust the review:
- BUGS: Focus only on logical or other bugs
- SECURITY: Focus only on security issues
- PERFORMANCE: Focus only on performance issues
Workflow
- Run
gh pr view [PR]andgh pr diff [PR]before reading files — the diff is the source of truth - Read surrounding files only when a finding needs context
- Review based on mode (or all categories if no mode set)
- Provide structured feedback
Output format
Group by severity:
- Critical - must fix before merge (bugs, security vulnerabilities)
- Suggestions - improvements worth considering
- Positives - good patterns to call out
Use file:line references for all findings. Include suggested fix for each critical issue.
See examples.md for output format and review-checklist.md for full checklist.
Rules
- Review ALL changed files, not just the latest commit
- Be specific: file:line + issue + suggested fix
- Separate critical issues from suggestions
Error Handling
- If
gh pr viewfails → rungh auth statusto verify authentication; ask user for PR number if not on a PR branch - If a changed file is deleted in the PR → skip reading it; note it was removed
- If diff is too large → prioritize changed files with highest risk (auth, payments, data mutation)
What ships with it
2 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 45 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 6b62976fbae8
pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository renanflustosa/octo-cluster (4 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 405 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 2026-09-16.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Use when asked to review a PR, MR, branch, or diff, audit changed files, or check code quality.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
Strict branch-diff review against the ticket spec. Use after a dev session, before a PR, or when the user asks to review the branch. execute-plan runs it as its review gate — do not also invoke it unless code changed after Verdict: ship.
review-build
Strict review of the branch diff against the ticket spec. implement-plan runs it as the review gate; invoke directly after a dev session or before a PR (sdlc-lite chain).
pr-review
Use when opening, reviewing, or merging a pull request. Covers pre-PR checks (linting, tests, branch naming), PR description requirements, and post-merge cleanup. Not for code review commentary or architecture decisions — use the relevant role guidelines for those.
google-feed-ops
Google Merchant Center (GMC) launch and operation plus the retail data layer: new-account launch sequence (site trust → ToS → verify+claim → business info → shipping/tax → data source → review → programs → Ads link → first campaign), Merchant API v1 mechanics and the gmcops CLI, feed spec and attributes, feed rules…
pn-best-of-n
Run 2–3 competing implementations of the same spec in isolated worktrees, eliminate failures via objective gates, then judge survivors with a separate premium-tier pass. Use for ambiguous algorithm/API/refactor choices with strong tests — not auth/security paths.