Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to rios0rios0/guide. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rios0rios0/guide/main/.github/workflows/generate-ai-rules/skills/check-standards/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rios0rios0/guideWrote 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/rios0rios0/guide/check-standards)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rios0rios0/guide/check-standards"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rios0rios0/guide/check-standards.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00024 | $0.00555 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00278 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00111 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
check-standards 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 6d 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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review all changes on the current branch against the team's coding standards defined in .claude/rules/ (already loaded into this conversation). This is meant to run BEFORE creating a PR to catch issues before reviewers do.
Step 1: Get the Changes
- Detect the default branch with
git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD(striprefs/remotes/origin/). Fall back tomainif unavailable. - Get the current branch name:
git branch --show-current - List changed files:
git diff <default-branch>...HEAD --name-only - Get the full diff:
git diff <default-branch>...HEAD
Step 2: Review Each Changed File
For each changed file, read the full file content and check it against the standards in .claude/rules/. Apply the rules that are relevant to that file type (e.g., styling rules for style files, architecture rules for services, testing rules for test files, etc.).
Step 3: Output Structured Review
Format the review as follows:
## Standards Check: [branch name]
### Critical Issues (Must Fix)
These WILL get flagged by reviewers:
- [file:line] Description of violation -- which rule it violates
### Warnings (Should Fix)
These will likely get flagged:
- [file:line] Description -- which rule it violates
### Suggestions (Nice to Have)
Optional improvements:
- [file:line] Description
### PR Quality Reminders
- [ ] Screenshots for all new/modified UI screens
- [ ] Evidence of all new features (modals, exports, charts, etc.)
- [ ] Target branch is correct
- [ ] Translations added to all locale files for new user-facing strings
- [ ] Linter passes with no errors
### Verdict: READY / NOT READY
Summary of findings.
Severity Classification
Critical (reviewers will reject for this):
- Any violation marked as CRITICAL or IMPORTANT in the rules files
- Hardcoded values that should use tokens or configuration
- Disabled linter rules in production code
- Security vulnerabilities (XSS, injection, etc.)
- Interfaces or types defined in the wrong architectural layer
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 67 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A feb087f425e0
check-standards is a skill published in the GitHub repository rios0rios0/guide (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 555 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
continual-learning
Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt…
meta-codereview-current-diff
Read the current uncommitted diff, run three independent reviewers (safety + tests-coverage + style) in parallel, then arbitrate a single BLOCK / BLOCKWITHOVERRIDE / PASSWITHNOTES verdict. Use before commit when you want a multi-perspective second-opinion instead of a single-reviewer agent loop.
prs-awaiting-maintainer
List open pull requests where the ball is in the maintainer's court: CI is green and the PR is ready for a maintainer to review, re-review, or merge. Use when the user wants to see PRs awaiting maintainer action.
compliance-checker
Check affiliate content for FTC compliance and platform rules. Triggers on: "check my content for compliance", "FTC disclosure check", "is this legal", "review for compliance", "check affiliate disclosure", "am I FTC compliant", "audit my content", "compliance review", "legal check", "platform rules check", "check…
security-audit
Security audit expert for OWASP Top 10, CVE analysis, code review, and penetration testing methodology.
review-ticket
Review a ticket or PR through focused specialist lenses: scope, architecture, security, tests, AC coverage, and PR metadata.