Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to sirkirby/unifi-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/sirkirby/unifi-mcp/main/.agents/skills/community-pr-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sirkirby/unifi-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/sirkirby/unifi-mcp/community-pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sirkirby/unifi-mcp/community-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sirkirby/unifi-mcp/community-pr-review/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/sirkirby/unifi-mcp/community-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sirkirby/unifi-mcp/community-pr-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to high
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 →
- high Tool Misuse · line 494 Tool parameters are crafted to achieve unintended or unsafe behavior. Parameter abuse can bypass intended safety checks (e.g. shell=True, --force, dangerous glob patterns).Fix: Validate all tool parameters against an allowlist. Reject dangerous parameter values (shell=True, --force, -rf /) and use safe defaults.
- medium Agent Snooping · line 231 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00176 | $0.11110 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00088 | $0.05555 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00035 | $0.02222 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01111 |
Grade A, and why
myco:community-pr-review 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 5d 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 — 799 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Community PR Review and Merge
Community PRs go through a fixed quality checklist before merge. For trusted contributors (level99 has 7+ merged PRs), the maintainer commits fixes directly to the contributor's fork branch rather than requesting round-trip revisions — this preserves attribution while eliminating latency. An exception exists for first-time contributors who are historically unresponsive: when the fix is trivial (ruff format, simple doc change), apply fork-edit rather than request changes. This skill documents the full workflow from first look to merge, including technical validation for PRs that touch UniFi API tool implementations.
Prerequisites
- PR is open and CI workflow state is understood (see Step 0b for first-time contributor gotcha)
- You have push access to the contributor's fork (needed for the fork-edit model)
AGENTS.mdis current — it is the canonical source for hard bans- For first-time contributors: check prior PR history to assess responsiveness (72+ hour silence threshold for fork-edit exception eligibility)
- For PRs touching tool implementations or API handlers: a live UniFi controller must be reachable to run smoke tests
- Makefile three-layer generation pipeline:
make generateregenerates committed artifacts,make check-generatedchecks for drift,make pre-commitruns the full chain (format → generate → lint → test → drift checks). Runmake pre-commitbefore opening any PR that modifies generated artifacts.
Step 0b — First-Time Contributor CI Auth Gate (Critical Gotcha)
When a first-time contributor opens a PR from a fork, GitHub queues all CI workflows with status
action_required silently. The workflows do NOT run automatically. No error is shown to the
contributor — they see a blank CI box in the PR.
You must manually authorize the workflow run in the GitHub UI:
- Go to the PR Actions tab
- Scroll to the pending workflow(s)
- Click "Approve and run" on each queued workflow
Do this before asking the contributor to make changes or before running your own review tests. Without this step, you will review against stale code or outdated test results, and the contributor will believe their PR is broken when it's just the CI gate.
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.
- 5d ago Changed 2dc4fe21da80
- 13d ago First seen · 799 lines · 176 tokens per session scan A 1552531a9f4b
myco:community-pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository sirkirby/unifi-mcp (809 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 176 tokens to every session and 11,110 once invoked, about $0.0009 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
issue-to-pr-resolver
Implement a GitHub issue end-to-end — create a worktree branch, implement the feature with tests, create a draft PR, then iteratively resolve all CI failures and review comments until the PR is clean. Use when you need to fully implement a GitHub issue from start to merge-ready. Triggers on "implement issue", "resolve…
my-pr-checker
Manage your own GitHub pull requests — check CI status, inline review comments, PR-level comments, resolve review threads, fix issues, and iterate until all checks pass and threads are resolved. Use for managing your own PRs (not external contributions). Triggers on "check my PR", "check PR", "/my-pr-checker ".
gitlab-merge-request-review
Review and merge GitLab merge requests via the gitlab-api MCP server — by default the MRs assigned to you or where you are a reviewer, optionally scoped to a project, group, or the whole instance. Read an MR, gate it on a green pipeline (pipeline → jobs → job log), then approve, accept/merge, or set…
review-changes
Review current staged, unstaged, and untracked Git changes for correctness and regression risk, grounded in changed paths, diffs, focused file reads, and nearby test discovery. Use when the user asks to review local changes or a working-tree diff; do not use for broad repository audits.
pr-analysis
Analyse a GitHub pull request by fetching its metadata, diff, linked issues and CI status.
address-pr-review-locally
Evaluate and address a GitHub pull request review locally. Use when a PR review contains inline comments, suggestions, or requested changes that need to be implemented in the local workspace. Covers fetching review threads, triaging by severity, applying code fixes, running tests, and optionally replying to or…