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 skyf0xx/hedgehog --skill pr-writinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/skyf0xx/hedgehogWrote 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/skyf0xx/hedgehog/pr-writing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/skyf0xx/hedgehog/pr-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/skyf0xx/hedgehog/pr-writing/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/skyf0xx/hedgehog/pr-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/skyf0xx/hedgehog/pr-writing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00107 | $0.01163 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00581 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00233 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00116 |
Grade A, and why
pr-writing 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 yesterday.
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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Writing
A PR description, commit message, or review comment is read by a human deciding whether to trust and merge the change. Write for that reader, not as a record of the work session.
Style rules
- Brief. State the change and the reason. Skip the narrative of how you got there.
- Info-dense, not verbose. Every sentence carries a fact. Cut sentences that restate the diff, the title, or each other.
- Don't write what's inferable. A reviewer can read the diff — don't describe what a line change does if the code already says so. State only what the diff can't show: intent, a non-obvious constraint, a fact you verified.
- Simplified Technical English. One claim per sentence. Concrete subjects, active voice, present tense for current behavior. No hedging ("might", "could potentially", "it seems"), no filler ("simply", "basically", "just"), no marketing language. Say "X fails when Y" — not "there might be an issue where X could fail if Y happens."
- Write for a human, not an AI reviewer. No emoji, no "Generated by", no restating the obvious for machine parsing. Plain prose a teammate would send in Slack.
Pre-open checklist
- CI must pass before you ask for review. Run the project's checks locally first — lint, tests, build. If a check is red after pushing, fix it or say plainly in the PR why it's expected (a known, unrelated flake), never leave it unexplained.
- One PR, one change. A second unrelated fix noticed along the way is a separate PR, not scope creep on this one.
- State only what you verified. "Ran
X, confirmedY" — never "this should work" or "this probably fixes it." An unverified claim in a test plan is itself a defect; a reviewer trusts it and later finds it was false. - Cite
file:linefor claims about existing behavior. An uncited claim is a hypothesis the reviewer has to re-derive themselves. - Reference the issue it closes, if any (
Fixes #123), instead of restating the issue's content.
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.
- yesterday Changed efefad77c140
- 11d ago First seen · 103 lines · 107 tokens per session scan A 624379044095
pr-writing is a skill published in the GitHub repository skyf0xx/hedgehog (38 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 107 tokens to every session and 1,163 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
quality-gates
Graduated pre-commit quality checks that scale with project complexity and user tier. Level 0 for Builder-tier small projects, up to Level 4 for enterprise codebases. Thresholds configurable in architecture.md.
commit
Create a well-formatted conventional commit with proper message structure. Use when ready to commit changes.
using-git-worktrees
Create isolated workspaces via git worktrees for parallel development. Safety verification ensures worktree directories are gitignored before use.
finishing-a-development-branch
5-step branch completion workflow — verify tests, determine base branch, present merge options, execute, and clean up.
ticketreview-commit
Thorough code review, verify requirements met, commit with detailed message.
ax-extract-workflow
Reconstruct workflow behind a past coding-agent artifact using local ax sessions/commits/skills/tool traces. Use when asked how X was built.