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 sandsower/beislid --skill ready-for-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sandsower/beislidWrote 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/sandsower/beislid/ready-for-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sandsower/beislid/ready-for-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sandsower/beislid/ready-for-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/sandsower/beislid/ready-for-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sandsower/beislid/ready-for-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00080 | $0.02340 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.01170 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00468 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00234 |
Grade A, and why
ready-for-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Ready for Review
Take a branch through gates, review, and PR creation. See worktree isolation. Existing PR updates: gates, push, report URL. Small new PRs use fast-path: preload aux, parallel-safe gates, combined review/final-check.
Don't use this for: mid-implementation commits, experimental branches without tickets, or work that isn't ready for review.
Project config: <repo>/.beislid/workflow.md. Use action-policy-protocol.md before side effects. Output follows output-templates.md and ready-for-review-templates.md.
Honor ../lifecycle-hooks.md before and after this phase.
Load project config
Read <repo>/.beislid/workflow.md. If it doesn't exist, hard-fail and stop:
🛑 No
workflow.mdfound in.beislid/. If this is a fresh project, run/setupto create one. If you moved your config, restore it to<repo>/.beislid/workflow.md.
Validate line 1 is <!-- beislid-workflow: v1 -->. If missing or different, hard-fail and stop:
⚠️ This
workflow.mdis<found>but ready-for-review only knowsv1. Update Beislið (current version is X.Y) or downgradeworkflow.mdby hand to v1 syntax. Ready-for-review will not silently mis-parse.
Compute cache identifiers with the same recipes doctor uses:
repo_hash=$(git rev-list --max-parents=0 HEAD | sort | head -c 12)
workflow_hash=$(git hash-object .beislid/workflow.md)
Read ${BEISLID_STATE_DIR:-$HOME/.local/state/beislid}/probes/<repo_hash>.json if present. Missing means cold; workflow hash mismatch means stale (start with empty in-memory state); matching hash means fresh (load capability entries). Per-cap freshness uses probe_cache.ttl_hours, default 24.
After config/cache setup, init transcript. probe(nopal_seam); on ok, init the ledger with nopal ledger init --skill ready-for-review --json, else beislid run-ledger init --skill ready-for-review (nopal-seam-protocol.md). Record events, and if active checkpoint with the same seam's ledger checkpoint --run-id <run_id> --name <phase_name>. Ledger and workflow-signal calls are best-effort: warn and continue on missing CLI or failure; never replace approvals, transcript, or memory marker. Then load Phase 1 and print orientation after branch/base/fast-path are known.
What ships with it
12 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.
- action-policy-protocol.md 40 B
- artifact-templates.md 36 B
- gate-proof-protocol.md 3.2 KB
- nopal-seam-protocol.md 37 B
- output-templates.md 34 B
- phase-1-detect.md 5.1 KB
- phase-2-gates.md 6.7 KB
- phase-3-review.md 4.9 KB
- phase-4-submit.md 7.0 KB
- probe-semantics.md 33 B
- ready-for-review-templates.md 44 B
- workflow-md-format.md 36 B
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 · 158 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 3cc805797e41
ready-for-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository sandsower/beislid (10 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 2,340 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
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.
verify-behavior
Verify or reproduce visible product behavior by driving the real UI with pi-computer-use's checked tools, requiring verified expect postconditions and durable state evidence for meaningful UI flows. Use when triage needs visual reproduction, implementation needs behavioral proof, review needs interactive confirmation…
github-contributor
End-to-end playbook for shipping high-quality pull requests to open-source projects you don't maintain — discovery, CONTRIBUTING compliance, PR-size check, minimal-diff implementation, PR description with AI-assisted disclosure, conflict resolution, and post-submission maintainer interaction. Use whenever creating…
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…
write-pr
Reference standards for writing pull request titles and descriptions in the tldraw repository, plus the pre-flight comment sweep over the diff. Use as supporting guidance when another skill or workflow needs PR content standards, not as the user-facing create/update PR workflow.