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-prgit 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-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shreypaharia/octomux/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shreypaharia/octomux/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/shreypaharia/octomux/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shreypaharia/octomux/review-pr.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Prompt Injection · line 35 Large whitespace padding was detected (a block of blank lines or a long run of spaces). This can push injected instructions below or to the right of the visible area so a human reviewer never sees them while the agent still reads them. Manual review of the hidden content is recommended.Fix: Remove the large whitespace padding (blank-line blocks or long space runs) and review any content hidden below or to the right of it. Keep skill files compact and reviewable so no instructions can be
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 | $0.00039 | $0.01414 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00707 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00283 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00141 |
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 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 — 159 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review & Post
Review a PR using parallel specialized agents, present findings to user, then post as a pending GitHub review with inline comments.
Inputs
- PR URL or number — from user args or current branch
- Base branch — from PR metadata or user override
- Review focus — optional, e.g. "focus on correctness and test coverage"
Steps
1. Gather PR Context
gh pr view <number> # title, description, base branch
gh pr diff <number> # full diff
gh pr diff <number> --name-only # changed files
gh pr view <number> --json headRefOid -q '.headRefOid' # commit SHA for review API
Also read CLAUDE.md and any service-specific CLAUDE.md files (e.g. internal/hedging/CLAUDE.md) to understand project conventions.
2. Launch Review Agents in Parallel
Launch all agents in a single message using the Agent tool. Each agent gets the full diff and changed file list. Agents should read CLAUDE.md for project conventions.
Agents:
| Agent | Focus |
|---|---|
| Code Reviewer | Up to 5 ranked improvements (impact vs effort). Watch for project-specific conventions. |
| Security & Financial Safety | Input validation, decimal precision, race conditions, secrets, data leakage. |
| Quality & Style | Complexity, dead code, duplication, naming, logging, constructor patterns. |
| Test Quality | Coverage gaps, test patterns, anti-patterns, assertion quality. |
| Performance & Concurrency | N+1 queries, goroutine leaks, race conditions, channel misuse, lock contention. |
| Dependency & Deployment | Breaking changes, config safety, migration safety, rollback safety. |
| Simplification | Over-abstraction, unnecessary complexity, change atomicity. |
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 · 159 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 963cedeec4a5
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository ShreyPaharia/octomux (22 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,414 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…