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 siarhei-belavus/agent-public --skill review-agents-treegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/siarhei-belavus/agent-publicWrote 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/siarhei-belavus/agent-public/review-agents-tree)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/siarhei-belavus/agent-public/review-agents-tree"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/siarhei-belavus/agent-public/review-agents-tree/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/siarhei-belavus/agent-public/review-agents-tree"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/siarhei-belavus/agent-public/review-agents-tree.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 | $0.00057 | $0.01391 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00556 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00139 |
Grade A, and why
review-agents-tree 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 2mo 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 — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
review-agents-tree
Manual durable-context hygiene pass.
Not a workflow gate.
Not a replacement for distill-knowledge.
Run this periodically to keep the tracked AGENTS.md tree lean, conflict-free, and aligned with current code/tests.
Read first
../references/persistent-artifacts-contract.md../../references/communication-mode.md- root tracked
AGENTS.md - all tracked local
AGENTS.mdfiles under the repository - tracked
AGENTS.override.mdpaths only to detect misuse or drift; never treat them as canonical repo truth - relevant code/tests only when a guidance conflict or staleness finding needs verification
Scope
This skill owns:
- periodic best-practice audit of the tracked
AGENTS.mdtree - writing
.agents/AGENTS_TREE_REVIEW.md - proposing cleanup, compaction, conflict resolution, and sharding plans
- auto-applying only trivial non-semantic hygiene fixes when they are clearly safe
- being the only non-distill skill allowed to touch tracked
AGENTS.md, and only for those trivial non-semantic hygiene fixes
It does not own:
- writing
AGENTS.override.md - semantic doctrine changes without explicit human approval
- shard creation, shard moves, or meaning-changing conflict resolution without explicit human approval
- task-local packet work unless a current task explicitly asked for this audit as part of that packet
Audit workflow
- Discover the tracked tree.
- Enumerate all tracked
AGENTS.mdfiles. - Note any tracked
AGENTS.override.mdfiles as likely hygiene smells. - Build the effective hierarchy from root downward.
- Enumerate all tracked
- Audit file shape.
- Confirm every tracked
AGENTS.mdhas## Scope. - Confirm section names stay canonical when present.
- Flag missing, tautological, or low-value
## Scopesections. - Flag
## Entrypointssections in deep leaf shards when they add no real wayfinding value. - Confirm other sections are present only when they contain real content.
- Flag files that drift from canonical section names.
- Confirm every tracked
- Audit lean-ness.
- Treat broad overview prose, directory dumps, repeated boilerplate, and generic cookbook content as compaction smells.
- Treat roughly 200+ lines as a review trigger for compaction or sharding, not an automatic failure.
- Audit specificity.
- Flag vague, non-verifiable instructions.
- Prefer exact commands, stable owner/module names, hard constraints, and durable rationale.
- Treat raw file-path links as a fragility smell unless they are unusually stable and clearly necessary.
- Audit hierarchy quality.
- Flag parent/child duplication when the child adds no meaningful specialization.
- Flag local files that restate root doctrine instead of carrying only boundary-local guidance.
- Flag guidance placed too high or too low relative to the stable owner boundary.
- Audit conflicts and ambiguity.
- Flag contradictory rules across parent/child tracked files.
- Flag ambiguous wording that could lead different agents to make different choices.
- Verify suspicious conflicts against code/tests before concluding.
- Audit staleness.
- Flag stale paths, commands, owner/module references, or other brittle anchors.
- Flag entries that are now better encoded in code/tests and should be pruned.
- Audit for task-state leakage.
- Flag plan recaps, worklog residue, temporary migration notes, or current-task chatter that belongs in
.plans/*, not trackedAGENTS.md.
- Flag plan recaps, worklog residue, temporary migration notes, or current-task chatter that belongs in
- Decide whether a trivial hygiene fix is safe.
- Safe auto-fix classes:
- section heading normalization to canonical names
- whitespace / formatting cleanup
- deduping exact duplicate bullets
- removing obviously broken file references when the correct target is unambiguous
- reordering within one section when meaning does not change
- If any fix changes meaning, defers a judgment call, or changes topology, do not apply it automatically.
- Safe auto-fix classes:
- Write
.agents/AGENTS_TREE_REVIEW.md.- Summarize current tree health.
- Record any auto-applied hygiene fixes.
- Emit concrete findings and approval-gated proposals.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 130 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 2fe6ac956402
review-agents-tree is a skill published in the GitHub repository siarhei-belavus/agent-public (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 1,391 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…