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 sago-cream/human-out-of-loop --skill solve-issue-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sago-cream/human-out-of-loopWrote 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/sago-cream/human-out-of-loop/solve-issue-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sago-cream/human-out-of-loop/solve-issue-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sago-cream/human-out-of-loop/solve-issue-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/sago-cream/human-out-of-loop/solve-issue-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sago-cream/human-out-of-loop/solve-issue-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 | $0.00044 | $0.01070 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00428 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00214 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00107 |
Grade A, and why
solve-issue-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 1mo 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Select
$solve-issue-review: select one eligible issue.$solve-issue-review <positive-issue-number>: select that issue only; never substitute another.$solve-issue-review pick [positive-amount]: select distinct issues in ascending order; default to1, or use all remaining when fewer qualify.- Dispatch batches immediately in parallel unless the user requests sequential execution; then finish each issue before dispatching the next.
Eligible: open, with no open or draft PR covering it through a GitHub Development link or closing keyword. Ignore incidental mentions.
Ineligible exact-target output:
ISSUE_SKIPPED issue=<number> reason=<not_found|not_open>
ISSUE_SKIPPED issue=<number> reason=covered_by_pr pr=<url>
Invariants
- Let
$prpublish the draft PR in the current branch's writable remote repository; never select or pass a publication mode. - Give each issue one sidebar-visible
DEVin an isolated worktree and one independent, source-read-onlyREV, created only afterDEVproduces a committed head. - Use no neutral seed, transient subagent, or
REVforked fromDEV. - Keep review feedback inside Codex tasks; never post GitHub review activity.
- Treat active workers as black boxes. ORCH routes lifecycle state; it never repeats or independently interprets worker diagnosis, design, implementation, or validation commentary.
- ORCH reports only selection/dispatch, an accepted ready head, review/fix transitions, publication, skip, or blocker. Worker tasks own detailed progress narration.
- Call
set_thread_titleonce per task and never change it:- Orchestrator:
Solve #<issue>orSolve <amount> issues - Developer:
#<issue>: <short-description> - Reviewer:
Review #<issue>
- Orchestrator:
- Key each run record by repo + issue. Store DEV/REV task IDs and cursors, absolute worktree, accepted head, PR URL, and lifecycle state.
Run
- Query issues and open/draft PRs. Select without replacement; recheck before each sequential dispatch or once per parallel batch.
- Create branch
<type>/<short-kebab-description>using the narrowest offix,feat,docs,refactor,test, orchore. Never namespace it. - Create
DEVwith repo, issue + URL, branch, base, absolute worktree, and optional media path. RequireDEVto:- Trust ORCH's coverage check. Recheck only after delay, interruption, or resumption; if covered, stop unchanged with
ISSUE_SKIPPED issue=<number> reason=covered_by_pr pr=<url>. - For UI changes, exclude
.codex-pr-media/through.git/info/excludeand capture matched, reproducible before/after media: video for interaction, motion, or multiple steps; images otherwise. - Implement, commit, and check. Before readiness, restore only agent-generated artifacts outside the commit and require a clean worktree except ignored media.
- Return
{ state: "ready_for_review", branch, headSha, checks, media, cleanWorktree: true }; never publish. - Leave the branch unchanged after readiness. Send replacement results only to REV.
- Trust ORCH's coverage check. Recheck only after delay, interruption, or resumption; if covered, stop unchanged with
- Verify DEV's first ready head equals worktree
HEADand the worktree is clean except ignored media. If either check fails, send DEV one narrow correction and wait for a replacement result. Otherwise store the result and createREVwith issue, DEV task ID, repo, worktree, base, head, checks, and media. - REV owns the loop:
- Verify each head, run
$pr, and send ORCH lifecycle milestones only; never relay intermediate technical commentary. - On findings, send the technical details only to DEV, report
fixto ORCH, and wait for DEV's replacement head. - Repeat until publication; report only the published head and PR URL to ORCH.
- Verify each head, run
- After the first ready head, accept head and lifecycle updates only from REV. Matching publication is terminal. For later user-requested changes, set
fix, send the request to DEV, and route DEV's replacement head to the same REV.
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines · -1 tokens per session 5696227107d2
- 2mo ago First seen · 59 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 46b0a3f87936
solve-issue-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository sago-cream/human-out-of-loop (6 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,070 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
pr
Draft a PR body from OMC's paper trail — the smallest visual that proves the change, evidence consumed from the verify protocol (never re-collected), reversibility from the ADR test on the diff, glossary language throughout.
merge-batch
Prepare and merge an owner-selected PR batch with contributor credit and exact-candidate admission. Use for a pasted PR list; combined focused validation is diagnostic, and every actual landing still requires its applicable checks and authorization.
otto-pr-review-loop
Run Polly and OCR on a PR until all findings settle.
engram-branch-pr
PR creation workflow for Engram following the issue-first enforcement system. Trigger: When creating a pull request, opening a PR, or preparing changes for review.
github-contributor
A step-by-step guide for contributing code, tests, documentation, or build changes to open-source projects you do not maintain. It explains how to prepare a pull request that follows the project’s rules and is easier for maintainers to review.
revdiff
Review diffs, files, and documents with inline annotations in a TUI overlay, or answer questions about revdiff usage, configuration, themes, and keybindings. Opens revdiff in agterm/tmux/zellij/herdr/kitty/wezterm/cmux/ghostty/iterm2/emacs-vterm, captures annotations, and addresses them. Works in git, hg, and jj repos…