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 saadshahd/moo.md --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saadshahd/moo.mdWrote 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/saadshahd/moo.md/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saadshahd/moo.md/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saadshahd/moo.md/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/saadshahd/moo.md/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saadshahd/moo.md/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 | $0.00034 | $0.00243 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00121 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00049 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00024 |
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 9d 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.
What it actually says
sound:review
What to read
- No argument →
git diff --cached. - A range (e.g.
main..HEAD) → its commits and the wholegit diff <range>.
How to review
The project's taste rules live under .claude/sound/. Read the ones that bear on the code the diff touches, and apply each rule's Detect: and Not-when: verbatim — never from memory. If .claude/sound/ is absent, say so and stop.
Review deeply: surface every rule the changes violate, and the enhancements that genuinely matter for this diff's kind. Ground every finding in the diff and the intent behind it — never rule from the text alone. Stay silent where a rule's Not-when: applies.
Report most-consequential first: - <file>: <rule or enhancement> — <anchor>. If nothing stands, say CLEAN.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 20 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 43df2c70cd66
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository saadshahd/moo.md (34 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 243 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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
code-reviewer
Code review knowledge base: quality, security (OWASP Top 10), error-handling, performance, and test-coverage checklists with severity-ranked output format. Use when reviewing code changes, PRs, or before commits. Loaded automatically by the code-reviewer agent.
independent-review-loop
Independent review loop run before delivery in code work. An independent reviewer (Codex, or fresh Codex-style subagents) reads the whole PR against the approved outcome; the lead fixes in-scope functional findings and re-reviews until none remain. Its differentiator is independence and exhaustiveness — a reviewer…
review-arch
Conduct a principal-level architecture review of a system, specification, diagram, or set of design decisions. Use when asked to review an architecture, evaluate a design, assess coupling/cohesion, check for anti-patterns, audit system boundaries, or produce an Architecture Review Board (ARB) style verdict. Also use…
review-impl
Review implementation changes for a given task against architectural standards. Use when reviewing a PR, evaluating recently committed code, assessing whether implementation changes are correct and architecturally sound, or when asked to 'review my changes', 'check this implementation', 'review what I built', 'is this…
pocket-development
Use when executing implementation plans of one or more tasks. Trigger on execute plan, delegate tasks, dispatch subagents. Combines delegate handoff discipline with prompt-engineering attention mechanics.
resolve-dispute
Resolves stuck review findings via a put-up-or-concede exchange. Invoked by the facilitator when a finding survives arbitration without new evidence.