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/get-pr-reviews/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/get-pr-reviews)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saffron-health/opencode-gui/get-pr-reviews"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saffron-health/opencode-gui/get-pr-reviews/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/get-pr-reviews"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saffron-health/opencode-gui/get-pr-reviews.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 | $0.00024 | $0.00591 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
get-pr-reviews 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to get-pr-reviews — 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Get nicely formatted review comments for a pull request, grouped by file and line with proper comment threading.
Steps
-
Determine PR number: If not provided, look up the associated PR for the current branch using:
gh pr view --json number --jq '.number' -
Get formatted review comments: Use the GitHub API to fetch and format all line-specific review comments:
gh api repos/:owner/:repo/pulls/{PR_NUMBER}/comments --jq ' group_by(.path, .line) | map({ path: .[0].path, line: .[0].line, comments: sort_by(.created_at) }) | sort_by(.path, .line) | map( "**\(.path)**\n Line \(.line):" + (.comments | map( if .in_reply_to_id then " | \(.user.login): \(.body)" else " (\(.user.login)): \(.body)" end ) | join("\n")) + "\n" ) | join("\n") '
Output Format
The formatted command produces output like:
**apps/api/src/handlers/optionsHandlers.ts**
Line 98: (tanishqkancharla): I think this is a bug. If you search for e.g. "blue cros", none of these search conditions will match.
| tanishqkancharla: I see that you re-query all insurances below, so this doesn't get used.
| Mochael: I think we should ditch the ilikes and just use the fuzzy search applied to planName, payer name and abbreviation
| tanishqkancharla: default to fuzzy search
**apps/api/src/handlers/optionsHandlers.ts**
Line 116: (tanishqkancharla): fyi: don't need to fix, but I think you can just do `query.where(and(...conditions, or(...searchConditions)))`
Key Features
- Grouped by file and line: Comments are organized by their location in the code
- Threaded conversations: Replies are indented with
|to show the conversation flow - Chronological order: Comments within each thread are sorted by creation time
- User attribution: Each comment shows the GitHub username of the author
Usage Example
# Get formatted review for PR #84
gh api repos/saffron-health/monorepo/pulls/84/comments --jq '...'
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 · 70 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 90ca15172448
get-pr-reviews is a skill published in the GitHub repository saffron-health/opencode-gui (58 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 591 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 get-pr-reviews, 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…