Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to saffron-health/opencode-gui. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/saffron-health/opencode-gui/main/.agents/skills/address-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saffron-health/opencode-guiWrote 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/saffron-health/opencode-gui/address-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saffron-health/opencode-gui/address-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saffron-health/opencode-gui/address-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/saffron-health/opencode-gui/address-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saffron-health/opencode-gui/address-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 | $0.00021 | $0.00451 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00180 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00090 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
address-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.
This is a copy
100% identical to address-review — 0 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.
What it actually says
Address PR review comments systematically.
Process
-
Get review comments: Use
gh api graphqlto fetch all review threads and comments for the PR. (If a PR number is not provided in the input, look up the PR for the current branch). -
Analyze comments: Review all the feedback to understand what changes are needed
-
Address each comment systematically: For each review comment:
- Make the requested code changes
- Verify the changes fix the issue raised
- Add explanatory comments if the reviewer requested clarification
- Test changes to ensure they don't break existing functionality
-
Quality assurance: Run type-check, build, and lint to ensure all changes are correct
-
Commit and push: Stage and commit all changes with an appropriate message and push.
-
Mark comments resolved: Query PR review threads with
gh api graphqlto get thread IDs and outdated status. Resolve all addressed threads usingmutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) { thread { isResolved } } }. Always resolve outdated threads.
Implementation Pattern
// Query review threads:
gh api graphql -f query='query { repository(owner: "owner", name: "repo") { pullRequest(number: N) { reviewThreads(first: 100) { nodes { id isResolved isOutdated comments { nodes { body } } } } } } }'
// Resolve thread:
gh api graphql -f query='mutation { resolveReviewThread(input: {threadId: "THREAD_ID"}) { thread { isResolved } } }'
Notes
- Only address reviews from human users; ignore bot reviews (e.g., Claude) unless explicitly requested
- Use sub-agents to handle independent review comments in parallel when possible
- Always verify changes don't introduce new issues
- If a review comment requires clarification, document the approach taken
- Focus on the specific issues raised rather than making additional changes
- Mark outdated comments as resolved automatically since they no longer apply to current code
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 · 44 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A ba07c4f389ee
address-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository saffron-health/opencode-gui (58 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 451 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to address-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…