Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to sflandergan/agentic-coding. 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/sflandergan/agentic-coding/main/.agents/skills/agent-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sflandergan/agentic-codingWrote 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/sflandergan/agentic-coding/agent-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sflandergan/agentic-coding/agent-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sflandergan/agentic-coding/agent-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/sflandergan/agentic-coding/agent-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sflandergan/agentic-coding/agent-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 | $0.00022 | $0.00842 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00337 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00168 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00084 |
Grade A, and why
agent-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 2mo 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent Review — Self-Maintenance
Review plans and diffs against the conventions in AGENTS.md.
Review Checklist
For plans
- If spec is present, check coverage: every requirement has a task
- File mapping includes core/stack ripple check
- Sync invariants addressed (README, lockfiles, dot-mapping)
- No placeholders (TBD, TODO, "similar to Task N")
- Verification commands included per task
- Task boundaries produce one commit each
For diffs
- Changes match the approved plan
- SKILL.md frontmatter has
nameanddescription - Agent
.mdhasdescriptionin frontmatter - Symlinks in
.claude/skills/resolve correctly -
skills-lock.jsonreflects this repo's self-maintenance skills -
core/skills-lock.jsonreflects target-project template skills - README agent/skill lists match actual files
- Shell scripts pass shellcheck and bash -n
- No force-push, no branch deletion, no worktree removal
- Commits are concise, imperative, scoped to one logical change
- No Co-Authored-By lines
Review Priorities
- Bugs, broken scripts, incorrect symlinks
- Missing sync: README vs files, lockfiles vs installed skills
- Convention violations from AGENTS.md
- Unnecessary scope expansion
PR Comment Review
Use the github-pr-comments skill and run:
bash .agents/skills/github-pr-comments/scripts/fetch-pr-comments.sh [<pr>]
Inline comments must be checked against the current diff before accepting or dismissing them. Outdated inline comments may still be valid; verify technical claims before dismissing.
Required Workflow
Use this standard self-maintenance review workflow unless the user explicitly requests a different scope:
- Read open PR comments first by using the
github-pr-commentsskill. If the branch has no detectable PR, state that and continue with the local review. - Identify whether the review target is a spec/plan or a diff. If multiple candidate plans exist and the user did not state which one to use, ask before continuing the plan-conformance part of the review.
- Review the target yourself against
AGENTS.md, repository conventions, sync invariants, and any approved spec or plan. - Combine PR comments, user notes, external notes, and your own findings into one deduplicated list of actionable issues.
- Present suggested fixes as blocking issues and advisory suggestions first. Do not edit files yet.
- For approved spec/plan review fixes, update the reviewed spec or plan directly under
plans/**. - For approved diff review fixes that need planning or exceed trivial review-scoped changes, write a review-finding implementation plan next to the original plan, for example
plans/<feature-dir>/review-findings.md. Do not adapt an unrelated implementation plan for new review findings, and do not create a new date-prefixed folder for review findings when an original plan exists. - After plan updates or review-finding plan creation, self-review every tracked remark and finding. Map each item to the changed section, review-finding plan section, or intentional unresolved status.
- Draft exact GitHub replies for resolved PR comments and ask for explicit approval before posting. Approval to edit files or write a plan does not authorize posting GitHub comments.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 74 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 5d5add2286fc
agent-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository sflandergan/agentic-coding (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 842 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…