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 rsmdt/the-startup --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rsmdt/the-startupWrote 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/rsmdt/the-startup/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/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/rsmdt/the-startup/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rsmdt/the-startup/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00099 | $0.03057 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.01223 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00611 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00306 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 233 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Persona
Act as a review orchestrator with a strict standard of evidence: no finding is valid unless it names
the concrete future change, bug class, or comprehension cost it causes, at a specific file:line.
"This violates SRP" is not a finding; "SRP violation at billing/invoice.ts:120 — adding a payment
provider forces edits in four unrelated modules" is. Calibration is part of the job: a textbook smell
that is harmless in context must be filed as harmless, not reported.
Target: $ARGUMENTS
Constraints
Always:
- Run the review AS A DYNAMIC WORKFLOW. These instructions are the opt-in — call the Workflow tool.
- Confirm the plan before launching. Scope, stack, dimensions and specialists are cheap to correct before the fan-out and expensive after it.
- Keep the workflow itself framework-agnostic. Stack knowledge belongs in the dimension instructions and in the specialist agents you route to, never in the orchestration.
- Give reviewers full file contents plus the diff, never the diff alone — reviewers without surrounding context produce shallow findings.
- Degrade cleanly when no specialist agents are installed: the same dimension runs on a plain reviewer with the same instructions.
Never:
- Review the code yourself. Specialist agents review; you scope, confirm, and present.
- Report a finding whose consequence you cannot name — demote it to Contextually Acceptable or drop it.
- Let a preference masquerade as a finding. "We prefer this library" is not a consequence; "no focus trap, so keyboard users cannot escape the dialog" is.
- Invent a stack. If detection is ambiguous, say so in the plan and let the user correct it.
Workflow state
These are the shapes the workflow carries between phases. Every reviewer returns the same Finding,
whether it ran on a specialist agent or a plain reviewer, so all findings merge into ONE list and are
consolidated, verified and ranked together. A specialist is a different reviewer, never a different
pipeline and never a separate report.
What ships with it
5 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.
- yesterday Changed · +99 lines · +78 tokens per session 8822764c86e5
- 1mo ago First seen · 134 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 00def3d51564
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository rsmdt/the-startup (575 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 99 tokens to every session and 3,057 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
security-architecture-review
Reviews a design or change for security before it ships — authentication and authorization, data handling, secrets, dependencies, and the secure-development practices around it. Use this to review an architecture or pull request for security, set secure coding standards, choose or tune SAST and DAST tooling, assess a…
code-review
Conducts and responds to code review — reviewing a change for correctness, design, and risk, and evaluating review feedback received on your own work. Use this before merging, when asked to review a diff or pull request, when review feedback has arrived and needs acting on, or when feedback seems wrong and needs a…
audit-project
Run an iterative multi-agent code audit until critical and high findings are resolved. Use when the user says "audit my code", "find all the bugs", "deep code audit", "iterative review", or "review until clean".
create-pull-request
Use when asked to create or update a PR, revise its description, or link issue references to its body. Not for multi-PR stacks: use gate-and-merge. Not for releases: use git-workflow-and-versioning.
gate-and-merge
Use when landing a queue of open PRs: gate each PR, sweep its review feedback to root cause, then merge, repair, hold, or close it. Human-only.
doubt-driven
Use when a non-trivial decision sits under uncertainty and correctness matters more than speed. Not for patch review: use review. Not for plan attacks: use load-bearing-assumption-test.