Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to rmjosea/agentic-sdlc-kit. 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/rmjosea/agentic-sdlc-kit/main/.agents/skills/review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rmjosea/agentic-sdlc-kitWrote 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/rmjosea/agentic-sdlc-kit/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rmjosea/agentic-sdlc-kit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rmjosea/agentic-sdlc-kit/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/rmjosea/agentic-sdlc-kit/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rmjosea/agentic-sdlc-kit/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 | $0.00067 | $0.00669 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00268 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
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 2mo 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review an Implementation
Review the actual diff and observed behavior. Do not rely on the implementer's summary as evidence.
Review is non-mutating by default. Report findings without editing unless the user explicitly asks for fixes.
State whether the review is independent or a self-review. Treat only a fresh
session or agent that did not implement the change as independent. High-risk
work reviewed only by its implementer must receive blocked, not approved.
Establish scope
- Resolve and record the fixed base/head or equivalent working-tree scope.
- Capture committed and uncommitted changes within that scope.
- Locate the authoritative intent: spec, accepted request, issue, contract, or reproduced prior behavior; then locate any plan and repository guidance.
- Identify checks that can verify the acceptance criteria.
If no spec exists, verify against the available authoritative intent. Do not invent missing intent; mark product conformance not applicable only when no reliable source exists.
Axis 1: intent conformance
Check:
- required behavior and acceptance criteria;
- traceability from available source items to tasks and evidence;
- missing, partial, or extra behavior;
- business rules, failures, and edge cases;
- externally observable quality constraints;
- unexplained deviation from confirmed scope.
Axis 2: engineering quality
Check:
- correctness and regression risk;
- simplicity and unnecessary abstraction;
- unrelated or overly broad changes;
- data integrity and compatibility;
- trust boundaries, authorization, secrets, and unsafe effects;
- error handling, recovery, and observability;
- tests, static checks, and documentation;
- maintainability within repository conventions.
Read references/security.md only when the change handles authentication, authorization, untrusted input, secrets, personal data, payments, external actions, or another trust boundary.
Validate
Run relevant checks when safe and available. Distinguish:
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 88 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 72d14b60c1e9
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository rmjosea/agentic-sdlc-kit (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 669 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…