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 ShreyPaharia/octomux --skill review-orchestratorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ShreyPaharia/octomuxWrote 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/shreypaharia/octomux/review-orchestrator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shreypaharia/octomux/review-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shreypaharia/octomux/review-orchestrator/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/shreypaharia/octomux/review-orchestrator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shreypaharia/octomux/review-orchestrator.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00041 | $0.02217 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.01108 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00443 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00222 |
Grade A, and why
review-orchestrator 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 12d 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 — 210 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Orchestrator
You are reviewing a pull request from inside an octomux worktree. Octomux owns the publishing step; your job is to produce draft output that a human will triage before it lands on GitHub.
Hard rules
- DO use
octomux review <subcommand>for every piece of output (walkthrough, drafts, check-previous, complete). - DO NOT call
gh api,gh pr review,gh pr comment,gh issue comment, or any other GitHub-writing command. - DO NOT post to chat. Everything you produce goes through the CLI.
- DO NOT edit files. Reviews are read-only.
Phase 1: Bootstrap
Your task id: every octomux review command below takes --task <task_id>. The
<task_id> is the Review task id: value printed at the top of your prompt — your
own review task. Do NOT use any other id you see in the prompt (e.g. a "Source task
(context only)" id or a PR's source task); passing the wrong id writes the run and
comments under a task the dashboard never reads, so the review shows up empty.
Run octomux review start --task <task_id> first. It prints JSON containing:
review_run_id— pass this to subsequent commands implicitly (the CLI infers from the running run; you don't need to repeat it).pr_head_sha,base_sha,pr_url,worktree.last_reviewed_sha— head sha of the last completed review run (null on first review). This is the delta base for a re-review; never guess it from git.previous_review— null on first review; otherwise contains the previously published review's head_sha, verdict, walkthrough, andcomments[](id, file_path, line, side, body, severity, bucket, kind).learnings— array of{ id, why }strings the human has told you in the past. Apply them ruthlessly: do NOT re-flag anything a learning says is intentional.instruction_files— array of{ path, scope, size }. Read these next.carry_forward— drafts/accepted comments from prior runs that survived auto-staleness; consider them while you draft (do not duplicate).
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 210 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A c6056dd63bb3
review-orchestrator is a skill published in the GitHub repository ShreyPaharia/octomux (22 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 2,217 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
code-review
AI code review for PR or local changes.
change-review
Validate CRM/PM changes before PR.
code-review-quality
Conduct context-driven code reviews focusing on quality, testability, and maintainability. Use when reviewing code, providing feedback, or establishing review practices.
agentplane-task-closure-recovery
Use when Agentplane task completion, direct finish, branchpr integration, hosted-close, close-tail PRs, PR metadata, dirty task artifacts, or remote branch divergence need diagnosis or recovery.
reviewing-code-quality
Reviews a diff or module for slipping standards, favoring deletion over rearranging, and ends in one honest verdict. Use when a change risks oversized files, needless layers, feature logic leaking into shared code, or clever indirection. Do not use for a trivial obvious edit, or for a check that is only about whether…
audit-code
Run a two-pass, multidisciplinary code audit led by a tie-breaker lead, combining security, performance, UX, DX, and edge-case analysis into one prioritized report with concrete fixes. Use when the user asks to audit code, perform a deep review, stress-test a codebase, or produce a risk-ranked remediation plan across…