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 sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflowsWrote 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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/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/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows/review.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 | $0.00042 | $0.00287 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00115 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00057 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
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 16d 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.
What it actually says
Code review
Apply the code-review skill as the base procedure. Map each acceptance criterion
to a check, run the relevant tests, and inspect failure paths; reading a diff alone
is not verification.
Review the complete diff and surrounding call paths. Verify behavior against repository instructions, tests, interfaces, data contracts, and failure handling. Look for semantic regressions, boundary violations, races, security issues, swallowed errors, missing validation, unintended side effects, duplicated logic, and unnecessary complexity.
Use reviewer roles and tools actually available in the environment. Independent reviewers help with substantial changes, but prompts should name explicit risks and acceptance criteria. Do not pin unavailable model names, require an absent provider, or treat reviewer count as a quality guarantee.
For every finding, cite the file and behavior, verify it against source, and classify severity and confidence. Fix confirmed critical and high-impact defects; resolve medium findings when they improve correctness or maintainability without expanding scope. Record false positives with the evidence that disproved them.
The review does not authorize paid evaluations, external publication, pushes, merges, or messages. Report what was checked, commands run, findings fixed or deferred, and environment limitations.
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.
- 16d ago Changed · -96 lines · -47 tokens per session 63b239475bba
- 1mo ago First seen · 115 lines · 89 tokens per session scan A 291226c8c234
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository sjarmak/coding-agent-workflows (6 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 287 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
Agent Instruction Drift Check
Procedure for comparing an agent-facing instruction doc (AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md-style) against the actual current code and configuration to find and flag mismatches.
karpathy-guidelines
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.
improve-codebase-architecture
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
agent-watchdog
Use when asked to watch, babysit, audit, review, compare, or fix another agent's work from a Codex session ID, Claude Code session/transcript, chat/thread link, PR, branch, log, or pasted run summary. Monitor until the other agent is done or blocked, reconstruct what the user asked, independently investigate the same…
find-simplifications
Use when asked to find or plan Cherry Studio cleanup, simplification, refactoring, dead-code removal, duplicated state removal, unnecessary APIs, speculative generality, or library replacements, especially when the result should become evidence-backed proposed Agent Notes.
no-comments
Spawn Comment Sicko, fix accepted findings, and offer encodings for claimed constraints.