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 shen-shanshan/vllm-dev-skills --skill aiter-review-prgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shen-shanshan/vllm-dev-skillsWrote 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/shen-shanshan/vllm-dev-skills/aiter-review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shen-shanshan/vllm-dev-skills/aiter-review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shen-shanshan/vllm-dev-skills/aiter-review-pr/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/shen-shanshan/vllm-dev-skills/aiter-review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shen-shanshan/vllm-dev-skills/aiter-review-pr.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 | $0.00061 | $0.15218 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.06087 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.03044 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.01522 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to review-pr — 696 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 — 633 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
aiter PR Review
Step 1 — Fetch
PR=$1 # PR number from skill argument
REPO="ROCm/aiter"
# Full metadata
gh pr view $PR --repo $REPO --json title,body,number,labels,files,author,reviews,comments > /tmp/pr_meta.json
# Diff
gh pr diff $PR --repo $REPO > /tmp/pr.diff
# Linked issue (extract from body "fix: #NNN" or "close #NNN")
ISSUE=$(cat /tmp/pr_meta.json | python3 -c "
import json,re,sys
body = json.load(sys.stdin).get('body','') or ''
m = re.search(r'(?:fix|close|resolve)[s]?[: ]*#(\d+)', body, re.I)
print(m.group(1) if m else '')
")
[ -n "$ISSUE" ] && gh issue view $ISSUE --repo $REPO --json title,body > /tmp/pr_issue.json
# Prior reviewer comments (top-level)
cat /tmp/pr_meta.json | python3 -c "
import json,sys
d = json.load(sys.stdin)
for r in d.get('reviews',[]):
b = (r.get('body','') or '').strip()
if b: print(f'[REVIEW {r[\"author\"][\"login\"]}] {b[:200]}')
for c in d.get('comments',[]):
b = (c.get('body','') or '').strip()
if b: print(f'[COMMENT {c[\"author\"][\"login\"]}] {b[:200]}')
"
# Inline review comments (line-level code comments — often more specific than top-level)
gh api "repos/$REPO/pulls/$PR/comments" | python3 -c "
import json,sys
comments = json.load(sys.stdin)
for c in comments:
author = c.get('user',{}).get('login','')
body = (c.get('body','') or '').strip()
path = c.get('path','')
line = c.get('line') or c.get('original_line','')
if body and 'copilot' not in author.lower() and 'bot' not in author.lower():
print(f'[INLINE {author}] {path}:{line}')
print(f' {body[:250]}')
" 2>/dev/null
Read the diff and PR body before proceeding.
Cross-file verification — do this before reporting any kernel/dispatch finding. The diff shows changed lines, not the whole story. Grep the entire symbol family, not just files in the diff:
- Sync/fence/atomics, or the "other half" of a scatter, may live in a
.cuh/.hrather than the.cuin the diff. Grep.cu+.cuh+.htogether before claiming "no synchronization" or "no bounds check." (aiter#3802: a "kernel has no sync" finding was a false positive — the signal barrier was in the.cuh.) - Read the actual function in the head file, not just the diff hunk, before claiming a branch/else is missing. (aiter#4098: a "compares raw uint8 vs float" finding was false — the reader had a conditional
maybe_view_fp8()the diff never showed.)
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 First seen · 633 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 0d1d39c6ccbe
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository shen-shanshan/vllm-dev-skills (25 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 15,218 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review-pr, differing in 696 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
moai-ref-cross-model-audit
Cross-model audit convergence reference for the plan-auditor and sync-auditor agents. Documents how to invoke the auditmulti MCP tool to fan a code review out across the Claude subscription, codex, and GLM (z.ai) backends, converge their independent verdicts, and fold the resulting per-backend verdicts + disagreement…
gh-pr-review
Automated Cherry Studio review for local branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, and repository skills. Use for code or documentation reviews that need project-specific naming, main/renderer/shared placement and dependency rules, IpcApi and DataApi boundaries, lifecycle/service ownership, renderer hooks…
find-simplifications
Use when asked to find or plan Cherry Studio cleanup, simplification, refactoring, dead-code removal, duplicated state removal, unnecessary APIs, speculative generality, or library replacements, especially when the result should become evidence-backed proposed Agent Notes.
github-review-pr
Review GitHub pull requests with detailed, multi-perspective code analysis using parallel subagents. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review a PR, asks for code review on a pull request, mentions "review PR", "check this PR", "look at pull request", or references a PR number or GitHub PR URL. Do NOT use for…
moai-foundation-quality
TRUST 5 quality principles and how MoAI enforces them through agents, the 3-level harness, /moai gate, and sync-auditor scoring. Use for code review, quality gate checks, coverage targets, or TRUST 5 compliance.
plan-eng-review
Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, test coverage, performance. Walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations. Use when asked to "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan". Proactively suggest when…