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/simonrowland/goal-flight/autoreviewnpx skills add simonrowland/goal-flight --skill autoreviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/simonrowland/goal-flightWrote 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/simonrowland/goal-flight/autoreview)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/simonrowland/goal-flight/autoreview"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/simonrowland/goal-flight/autoreview.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 | $0.00032 | $0.02422 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.01211 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00484 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00242 |
Grade A, and why
autoreview 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 199 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Auto Review
Run the bundled structured review helper as a closeout check (code review, not approval routing).
Codex review is the default when no engine is set. It usually delivers the best review results and should remain the normal final closeout engine.
Use when:
- user asks for Codex review / Claude review / autoreview / second-model review
- after non-trivial code edits, before final/commit/ship
- reviewing a local branch or PR branch after fixes
Contract
- Treat review output as advisory. Never blindly apply it.
- Verify every finding by reading the real code path and adjacent files.
- Read dependency docs/source/types when the finding depends on external behavior.
- Reject unrealistic edge cases, speculative risks, broad rewrites, and fixes that over-complicate the codebase.
- Prefer small fixes at the right ownership boundary; no refactor unless it clearly improves the bug class.
- When an accepted finding shows a bug class or repeated pattern, inspect the current PR scope for sibling instances before fixing.
- Fix the scoped bug class at once when practical; stop at touched surfaces, owner boundaries, and clear follow-up territory.
- Keep going until structured review returns no accepted/actionable findings.
- If a review-triggered fix changes code, rerun focused tests and rerun the structured review helper.
- For security-audit suppression changes, verify accepted findings remain auditable: suppressed findings stay in structured output, active output keeps an unsuppressible suppression notice, and aggregate findings cannot hide unrelated active risk.
- Never switch or override the requested review engine/model. If the review hits model capacity, retry the same command a few times with the same engine/model.
- Be patient with large bundles. Structured review can take up to 30 minutes while the model call is active, especially with Codex tools or web search.
- Treat heartbeat lines like
review still running: ... elapsed=... pid=...as healthy progress, not a hang. Let the helper continue while heartbeats are advancing. Pass--stream-engine-outputwhen live engine text is useful; Codex and Claude filter tool/file chatter, other engines pass raw output through. - Do not kill a review just because it has been quiet for 2-5 minutes, or because it is still running under the 30-minute window. Inspect the process only after missing multiple expected heartbeats, after 30 minutes, or after an obviously failed subprocess; prefer letting the same helper command finish.
- Tools are useful in review mode. The helper allows read-only inspection tools and web search by default so reviewers can check dependency contracts, upstream docs, and current behavior.
- Security perspective is always included, but it should not cripple legitimate functionality. Report security findings only when the change creates a concrete, actionable risk or removes an important safety check.
- For regression provenance, keep roles separate: blamed code author, blamed PR author, PR merger/committer, current PR author, and PR/date. If no blamed PR is traceable, use the blamed commit as the provenance: commit SHA, date, and author username. Do not guess a merger or frame missing PR metadata as a separate finding.
- If the blamed PR was merged by an automation/bot account or another automation, identify the human trigger when practical. Check timeline/comments first; if rate-limited, use a GitHub cache or public PR HTML. Look for maintainer commands such as
@<bot> automerge,/landpr, or labels/status comments that armed automerge. Reportautomerge triggered by @login; if not found, say trigger unknown. - Do not invoke built-in
codex review, nested reviewers, or reviewer panels from inside the review. The helper builds one bundle, calls one selected engine, validates one structured result, and stops. - Stop as soon as the helper exits 0 with no accepted/actionable findings. Do not run an extra review just to get a nicer "clean" line, a second opinion, or clearer closeout wording.
- Treat the helper's successful exit plus absence of actionable findings as the clean review result, even if the underlying Codex CLI output is terse.
- Multi-reviewer panels are opt-in only. Use them when explicitly requested or when risk justifies the extra spend; the main agent still verifies every accepted finding before fixing.
- If rejecting a finding as intentional/not worth fixing, add a brief inline code comment only when it explains a real invariant or ownership decision that future reviewers should know.
- Do not push just to review. Push only when the user requested push/ship/PR update.
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 199 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 7112343aa193
autoreview is a skill published in the GitHub repository simonrowland/goal-flight (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 2,422 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-recent-changes
Review recent changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) across three independent axes - Standards, Spec, and Maintainability - producing severity-ordered findings with an explicit verdict. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, or recent committed changes.
code-review
Use this skill after completing multiple, complex software development tasks before informing the user that work is complete.
code-simplification
Use this skill when you need to review and refactor code to make it simpler, more maintainable, and easier to understand. Helps with identifying overly complex solutions, unnecessary abstractions.
self-review
Use to critically self-review your changes, or when you want to delegate the review to a sub-agent.
chimera-list-exemptions-not-obligations
A gate that lists what to check fails open — the site nobody remembered to add is the one that breaks. List the exemptions instead, each with a written reason, and the default becomes fail.
chimera-state-what-you-did-not-check
A ranking built from part of the system reads as a ranking of the system — write the scope and the exclusions next to the findings, not after them.