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 serpro69/claude-toolbox --skill beforegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/serpro69/claude-toolboxWrote 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/serpro69/claude-toolbox/before)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/serpro69/claude-toolbox/before"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/serpro69/claude-toolbox/before/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/serpro69/claude-toolbox/before"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/serpro69/claude-toolbox/before.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 | $0.00009 | $0.00222 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00089 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00044 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00022 |
Grade A, and why
review-tool 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 3d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
A licence we could not identify
The repository carries a LICENSE file, but it is custom or dual enough that GitHub cannot name it and neither can this catalogue. Unknown terms are not permission, so the body is not copied here. Read the licence at the source and decide for yourself.
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.
- 21d ago Changed · -32 lines · -1 tokens per session 7fd42b71fd59
- 1mo ago First seen · 39 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 0551fae65e03
review-tool is a skill published in the GitHub repository serpro69/claude-toolbox (150 stars, last pushed today), with no licence file. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 222 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
059-design-atdd
Use when reviewing whether an OpenSpec change's execution goal, acceptance criteria, and implementation or verification tasks are aligned. This should trigger for requests such as Review this OpenSpec change with ATDD; Check acceptance criteria against tasks; Find acceptance criteria without task coverage; Detect…
053-design-simple-rules
Use when Java design, refactoring, or implementation tradeoffs should be evaluated with Kent Beck's simple design rules, including passes the tests, reveals intention, has no duplication, and has the fewest elements. This should trigger for requests such as Apply simple design rules; Review this design with Beck's…
056-design-avoid-breaking-changes
Use when you need to review a plan, OpenSpec change, specification, or implementation proposal for breaking-change risk across commands, skills, generated outputs, XML sources, README/docs, tests, CI, APIs, schemas, configuration, data, migration, and release guidance. This should trigger for requests such as Review…
java-code-review
Review Java code for bugs, duplicate code, correctness risks, maintainability improvements, and missing tests. By default review files modified in git; when the user explicitly names files, classes, packages, or a diff, review that scope instead. Generate a detailed review.md report with actionable comments and fixes.
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
codex-ab
Run an A/B codex review experiment — holistic codex review vs 3 focused dimension passes (security, ecto, liveview) on the branch diff, classify findings, report a panel-value verdict. Use when the branch is fresh, before any codex review runs.