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 rube-de/cc-skills --skill ci-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rube-de/cc-skillsWrote 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/rube-de/cc-skills/ci-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rube-de/cc-skills/ci-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rube-de/cc-skills/ci-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/rube-de/cc-skills/ci-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rube-de/cc-skills/ci-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Prompt Injection · line 68 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 65 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00127 | $0.07744 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00051 | $0.03098 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.01549 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00774 |
Grade A, and why
ci-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 — 519 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
CI Review
CRITICAL REQUIREMENT: This skill is an automated review submitter. Its primary deliverable is an atomic GitHub PR review submitted by calling the Bash tool to execute post-review.sh.
You MUST call the Bash tool to execute post-review.sh on EVERY run before writing any final summary text (see Step 7 for the invocation command). Ending a session without calling the Bash tool to post the review violates the contract and fails CI.
Mandatory Review Contract (Inviolable)
Every execution of /ci-review MUST complete all workflow steps through Step 8:
- Step 6 is mandatory on ALL runs: Construct the payload file
${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/ci-review-payload-<PR#>.json(using the "No Findings" template with"comments": []when clean). - Step 7 is mandatory on ALL runs: Call the
Bashtool to runsh "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../scripts/post-review.sh" <PR#> "${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/ci-review-payload-<PR#>.json". - Step 8 is mandatory: Output the summary including the review URL returned by
post-review.sh.
Before running, read references/REVIEW-POSTING.md now for the review posting format and error handling chain.
Profiles
| Profile | Agents | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| single | single-reviewer (one comprehensive agent) | Routine PRs, CI budgets, small diffs — ~6x cheaper than lean |
| lean (default) | deep-reviewer, guidelines-checker, bug-detector, security-reviewer, silent-failure-hunter, code-simplifier | Every PR — balanced cost and coverage |
| full | All lean agents + test-analyzer, comment-analyzer, type-analyzer | Critical PRs, large changes, pre-release |
| agent | Same agents as full | PR authored by an AI agent — surfaces more findings since fixes are cheap |
Agent Profile
The --agent flag activates the agent profile, designed for reviewing AI-authored code. It uses the full agent set but with different thresholds and additional prompt context:
What ships with it
1 file 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 · 519 lines · 127 tokens per session scan A 04c868bd295f
ci-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository rube-de/cc-skills (10 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 127 tokens to every session and 7,744 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
skeptical-triage
Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of 4 extra LLM turns.
anti-patterns
Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that greatcto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect (pre-impl), pm (planning), senior-dev (impl), l3-support (post-incident).
well-architected
6-pillar architecture review framework. Adapted from AWS Well-Architected for use by greatcto's architect agent on every non-nano ARCH document. Forces explicit answers across operational excellence, security, reliability, performance, cost, and sustainability — not just feature design.
product-economics
Does this product make money at a price someone will pay? Forces contribution margin, a price with a stated basis, and a bottom-up market size — each number labelled measured / assumed / unknown, so a guess can never be read as a calculation.
cost-model
Standardized cost-estimation framework for greatcto plans. Forces explicit LLM cost, infra cost, human-supervision time, and the (defensible) human-equivalent comparison. Output format is parsable by the board's /api/cost path — must follow exactly.
lifecycle-messaging
Email/SMS lifecycle and deliverability framework for SMB Product-Builder products that send transactional or lifecycle messages (booking reminders, CRM sequences, receipts, win-back). Codifies provider selection (Resend/Postmark/Twilio/SendGrid), domain auth (SPF/DKIM/DMARC), consent and compliance (TCPA, CAN-SPAM…