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 | $0.00030 | $0.07609 |
| Sonnet 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 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.
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.
- 8d 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 (17 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 15,218 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
cn-check
Install and run the Continue CLI (cn) to execute AI agent checks on local code changes. Use when asked to "run checks", "lint with AI", "review my changes with cn", or set up Continue CI locally.
open-code-review
Performs AI-powered code review on Git changes using the ocr CLI from alibaba/open-code-review. Use when the user asks to review code, review a pull request, review staged/unstaged changes, review a commit, or compare branches for code quality issues. Produces line-level review comments and can automatically apply…
review-prs
Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the team's reviewer checklist: PR title/description conventions, linked issue, logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks…
continual-learning
Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt…
learn-from-sage
Detection-gap (miss) analysis for Code Review Sage. Learn from shipped fixes, acted-on human comments, and design outcomes to close reviewer blind spots. Inline during review stages a candidate; a human triggers a one-shot AI consolidation into the live ruleset.
git
Git and code hosting platform management — GitHub, GitLab, Codeberg, Forgejo. Zero barrier — install x-cmd and manage repos from the terminal. Use for "git", "github", "gitlab", "repo", "pull request", "code hosting".