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 ronmkr/PromptBook --skill dual-axis-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ronmkr/PromptBookWrote 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/ronmkr/promptbook/dual-axis-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ronmkr/promptbook/dual-axis-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ronmkr/promptbook/dual-axis-code-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/ronmkr/promptbook/dual-axis-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ronmkr/promptbook/dual-axis-code-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 | $0.00098 | $0.01021 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00511 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00204 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
dual-axis-code-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 5d 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.
This is a copy
98% identical to review — 6 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:
- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?
Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point
Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. Don't be opinionated; pass it through. If they didn't specify one, ask: "Review against what — a branch, a commit, or main?" Don't proceed until you have it.
Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.
2. Identify the spec source
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
- Issue references in the commit messages (
#123,Closes #45, GitLab!67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow indocs/agents/issue-tracker.md. - A path the user passed as an argument.
- A PRD/spec file under
docs/,specs/, or.scratch/matching the branch name or feature. - If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
3. Identify the standards sources
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written. Common locations:
GEMINI.md,AGENTS.mdCONTRIBUTING.mdCONTEXT.md,CONTEXT-MAP.md, per-contextCONTEXT.mdfilesdocs/adr/(architectural decisions are standards).editorconfig,eslint.config.*,biome.json,prettier.config.*,tsconfig.json(machine-enforced standards — note them but don't re-check what tooling already checks)- Any
STYLE.md,STANDARDS.md,STYLEGUIDE.md, or similar at the repo root or underdocs/
Collect the list of files. The Standards sub-agent will read them.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 79 lines · 98 tokens per session scan A a22a0273d5b6
dual-axis-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ronmkr/PromptBook (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 98 tokens to every session and 1,021 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to review, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
improve-codebase-architecture
Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain language in CONTEXT.md and the decisions in docs/adr/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.
crit
Review code changes, a plan, a live page (running dev server), or a local HTML file with Crit inline comments and structured human feedback. Use only when the user explicitly invokes /crit or directly asks to use Crit; a generic review request does not count.
code-review
Review frontend code for best practices, bugs, and improvements. Use when reviewing PRs, checking code quality, or before committing.
review-harness
Use when reviewing implementation work that ran through a /tmp Pi task harness. Checks contract drift, unsafe shortcuts, validation evidence, and status honesty.
simplify
Code simplification for high-complexity files. Targets deep nesting, copy-paste patterns, and god functions.
grill
Rigorous requirements gathering through Socratic questioning. Use when the user says "/grill", "grill me", "ask me questions until we understand", or wants to be interrogated about implementation details before writing code. Forces deep thinking about edge cases, behavior, and design decisions before any code is…