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 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00408 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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.
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.
- 1mo 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 4mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 98 tokens to every session and 1,021 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.
hypotheses
Turns a research direction into testable hypotheses with predictions, competing explanations and the experiments that discriminate between them, including the design (controls, randomization, blocking), sample size or seed count, the pre-specified analysis, and the result that would falsify each hypothesis. Use when a…
crossreview
Run when the user invokes /crossreview (or /crossreview:setup to choose the reviewers) or asks for a cross-review, a quorum review or a second opinion from other agents or models: fan a code review (uncommitted work, a branch, a commit range, files, a plan or a document) out to several console code agents (Claude…
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.
code-review
Review frontend code for best practices, bugs, and improvements. Use when reviewing PRs, checking code quality, or before committing.
simplify
Code simplification for high-complexity files. Targets deep nesting, copy-paste patterns, and god functions.