Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Sighthesia/interactive-choice-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Sighthesia/interactive-choice-mcp/main/.github/skills/review-implementing/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Sighthesia/interactive-choice-mcpWrote 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/sighthesia/interactive-choice-mcp/review-implementing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sighthesia/interactive-choice-mcp/review-implementing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sighthesia/interactive-choice-mcp/review-implementing.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00035 | $0.00770 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00385 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00154 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
review-implementing 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 6d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 137 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 110c53375da7
review-implementing is a skill published in the GitHub repository Sighthesia/interactive-choice-mcp (4 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 770 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
ship-pr
Ship one pull request, monitor hosted CI and review feedback, follow PR policy, and request authorization before merging and cleaning up.
wcode
Use the wcode plugin and its MCP tools for repository coding, review, debugging, refactoring, architecture, Graph/Design inspection, safe edits, command execution, and verification. Trigger whenever wcode is installed or named, even when its tools are lazily registered or omitted from the host's initial tool list.
code-review
Review code changes for bugs, regressions, missing tests, and unclear behavior.
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…
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.