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.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00010 | $0.00226 |
| Sonnet 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 8d 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.
- 8d 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 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 451 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…