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 smartwhale8/claude-playbook --skill review-prgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/smartwhale8/claude-playbookWrote 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/smartwhale8/claude-playbook/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/smartwhale8/claude-playbook/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/smartwhale8/claude-playbook/review-pr/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/smartwhale8/claude-playbook/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/smartwhale8/claude-playbook/review-pr.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00246 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00123 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00049 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 11d 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
Review pull request: $ARGUMENTS
Follow this checklist:
- Read the PR: Run
gh pr view $ARGUMENTSandgh pr diff $ARGUMENTS - Understand scope: What is this PR trying to accomplish?
- Review for correctness:
- Does the code do what it claims?
- Are there edge cases not handled?
- Are there off-by-one errors, null pointer risks, or race conditions?
- Review for architecture:
- Does this follow existing patterns in the codebase?
- Is there code duplication that should be extracted?
- Are new dependencies justified?
- Review for security:
- Input validation on external data?
- SQL injection, XSS, or other OWASP risks?
- Secrets or credentials exposed?
- Review for testing:
- Are new behaviors covered by tests?
- Are edge cases tested?
- Summarize: Provide a clear summary with specific, actionable feedback
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 29 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A b5dff32c643f
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository smartwhale8/claude-playbook (37 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 246 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
ring:adopting-lib-commons-huma-wrapper
Adopting the lib-commons/v5 shared Huma (OAS 3.1) OpenAPI wrapper + RFC 9457 problem model (commons/net/http/{openapi,problem}) in a Lerian Go service: wire openapi.New/ServeSpec + problem.Install (central >=500 scrub) on BOTH runtime and spec-gen paths, the per-rail problem.MapError flex seam, and rename-only spec…
ring:writing-plans
Writing a rolling-wave phased implementation plan from a spec before coding: a phase-epic-task hierarchy where Phase 1 is detailed into dispatch-ready tasks and later phases stay epic-level for elaboration during execution. Use when a multi-file feature needs decomposition; runs after ring:exploring-codebases or…
ring:committing-changes
Commit changes with scope allowlist enforcement, atomic grouping, GPG-signed conventional commits, and trailer management. Detects the repo's PR-validation scope policy before proposing any message. Use when the user asks to commit or has changes ready to record. Skip when the working tree is clean or the user wants…
ring:exploring-codebases
Exploring a codebase across phases: scopes the target, detects architecture, components, and layers, deep-dives each discovered perspective, then synthesizes findings into actionable guidance with file:line evidence. Use to understand how a feature or system works before planning changes, or to orient on an unfamiliar…
ring:searching-code
Forensic code search and analysis with optional Chain of Draft (CoD) ultra-concise mode. Five-phase methodology (clarification, planning, execution, analysis, synthesis) with severity assessment. Use for targeted investigation of specific patterns, bugs, or vulnerabilities. Skip for broad architecture mapping (use…
ring:opening-pull-requests
Open a GitHub Pull Request with automatic base branch detection, scope allowlist enforcement, PR template filling, and post-create base verification. Replaces ring:generating-pr-descriptions. Use after pushing a branch when ready to open a PR. Skip if the branch is not yet pushed or there are uncommitted changes …