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 agentmods add skills/shopwarelabs/ai-coding-tools/pr-analyzingnpx skills add shopwareLabs/ai-coding-tools --skill pr-analyzinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shopwareLabs/ai-coding-toolsWhat 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 | $0.00056 | $0.01464 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00732 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00293 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00146 |
Grade A, and why
pr-analyzing 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Analyzing
Analyze a GitHub pull request by combining authoritative PR data from GitHub with semantic code research from ChunkHound. Produces a structured analysis of scope, impact, and architectural context.
Do not activate for generic code questions that do not reference a specific PR.
Prerequisites
Requires the chunkhound-integration companion plugin. The skill calls mcp__plugin_chunkhound-integration_ChunkHound__code_research at Step 3 and stops with an error if that tool is not callable — see Errors.
PR data is fetched from GitHub using whatever access the session has available (a GitHub MCP server, the gh CLI, or direct API calls).
Input
- Required: PR number
- Optional: Repository as
owner/name— defaults to the current repository context - Optional: Triage reasoning — context from the caller about why analysis was requested (e.g., "flagged because it touches 12 files across Checkout and Payment"). Treat as a hint for research focus, not required input.
Workflow
Step 1 — Fetch PR data
Fetch the following from GitHub, in order:
- PR metadata — title, body, author, labels, state
- Changed files — list with additions/deletions per file
- Unified diff
- Reviews — decisions and top-level review bodies
- Inline code review comments
Use whatever GitHub access is available in the session. Collect everything before Step 2. On error (PR not found, access denied, no GitHub access), stop and report to the user.
Step 2 — Assess scope
From the fetched data, determine:
- File count and spread — how many files changed and how many distinct directories or top-level areas they span
- Volume — total additions and deletions
- Labels — area labels, type labels (feature, bugfix, breaking change), and any flags
- Review complexity — number of reviews, inline comment volume, whether reviews are contentious or unanimous
This assessment drives how much research depth Step 3 warrants.
Step 3 — Research architectural impact
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 110 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A a1c577f2c6bd
pr-analyzing is a skill published in the GitHub repository shopwareLabs/ai-coding-tools (42 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 1,464 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
lanes
Start, restart, stop, and check loop lanes as named background Claude Code sessions seeded from canonical prompt files, the scripted replacement for the manual morning refresh (cancel loop, clear, re-paste the canonical prompt) across N lanes on a machine. start/restart first pull the repo and refresh the plugin…
batch-simplify
Batch-run simplification across changed files, or across an entire repository, grouped by ecosystem and dependency order. Use when: 'batch simplify', 'simplify recent changes', 'simplify everything', 'forgot to run simplify', 'catch up on simplify', 'simplify my branch changes', 'simplify the whole repo', 'simplify…
audit-permission-state
Report the Claude Code permission state actually in effect. Discovers every settings scope (managed policy, user-global, project, local, and the pre-v2.1.211 start-directory copy), merges them into the effective allow/ask/deny set with each rule's source and precedence mechanic named, and classifies which allow rules…
audit-install-state
Read-only audit of a Claude Code INSTALLATION directory, the machine-scope /.claude tree plus /.claude.json. Inventorying every file, separating what the product's own retention sweep already manages from what nothing manages, resolving what each number in a filename actually means before any process-liveness check…
audit-native-overlap
Map native Claude Code surfaces, built-in CLI commands, bundled skills, plugin-backed built-ins, session-provided skills, against the current repo's plugin skills and agents, so a custom component never silently duplicates what Claude Code itself now ships. Bare invocation is a READ-ONLY report: overlap candidates…
audit-prompting-postures
Audit locally-owned instruction components, including skill bodies, agent definitions, hook instruction text, output styles, CLAUDE.md and rules, for MISSING posture guidance the official prompting guide says their purpose needs: delegation criteria/caps in orchestration components, minimal-scope and anti-test-gaming…