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 SNIKO/agent-skills --skill swe-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/SNIKO/agent-skillsWrote 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/sniko/agent-skills/swe-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sniko/agent-skills/swe-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sniko/agent-skills/swe-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/sniko/agent-skills/swe-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sniko/agent-skills/swe-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 | $0.00045 | $0.00839 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00336 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00168 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00084 |
Grade A, and why
swe-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 1mo 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pipeline
swe-shape → swe-spec → [swe-plan] → [swe-worktree] → swe-execute → swe-review, with swe-research available at any point.
Each stage runs in its own session — that separation is what makes this review independent. Assume no memory of the session that produced the target.
- This stage: review one artifact or one code change with fresh context.
- Reads: the review target, its upstream artifacts, and the repository. Artifacts are
brief.md(problem and acceptance, fromswe-shape),spec.html(design and contracts, fromswe-spec),plan.md(slice ordering, fromswe-plan),state.md(execution progress, fromswe-execute), and research reports (fromswe-research). - Writes: nothing. Findings are returned in chat.
- Next: the user decides whether to revise, return upstream, or proceed.
Purpose
Provide an independent, concise review of either an SWE artifact or changed code. Optimize for confirmed, actionable findings rather than volume.
Modes
Choose exactly one mode from the user's target:
- Artifact review:
brief.md,spec.html,plan.md,state.md, or a researchreport.md. - Code review: pull request, branch, commit range, staged changes, unstaged changes, or an implementation checked against SWE artifacts.
When the target is ambiguous and artifact and code review would produce materially different scopes, ask one clarifying question. Otherwise infer the mode from the path or request.
Workflow
- Identify the exact review target and scope.
- Read the corresponding reference completely:
- artifact review: references/artifact-review.md
- code review: references/code-review.md
- Apply repository rules before general review preferences.
- Treat the target as if entering with fresh context: verify its claims and do not defend decisions because they appeared earlier in the conversation.
- Return only verified, deduplicated, actionable findings in the reference's output format.
What ships with it
11 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.
- agents/bugs-and-regression.md 3.4 KB
- agents/code-quality.md 4.7 KB
- agents/design.md 7.5 KB
- agents/documentation.md 3.8 KB
- agents/performance.md 2.8 KB
- agents/quick-review.md 2.9 KB
- agents/release.md 3.2 KB
- agents/security.md 2.5 KB
- agents/spec-compliance.md 2.7 KB
- references/artifact-review.md 9.4 KB
- references/code-review.md 8.3 KB
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 69 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 76f4d295d1eb
swe-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository SNIKO/agent-skills (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 839 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
oracle
Oracle second-model review: bundle prompts/files, debug, refactor, design.
pr-screenshot-comparison
Create clear, polished before-and-after screenshots from the actual running product for a GitHub pull request. Use when a UI change needs visual proof: capture matching product states, crop to the relevant UI, stitch and caption one comparison image, attach it natively to the PR, and keep the image out of the…
pr-description
Write or update a GitHub PR description a teammate understands in one quick read: clear before/after behavior, useful visual evidence, and plain sentences grounded in the diff and real verification. Use when opening a PR or editing its description.
pr-self-review
Draft explanatory author-context comments for the user's own PR or local diff. Use for self-review or reviewer context, not a formal review submission. Posting requires approval.
html-artifacts
Author the HTML for a plan artifact, dashboard iframe, or Slack attachment — structure, design plan, available runtime, theming, and craft. Read this before writing HTML for publishartifact, outputiframe, or slackattachhtml.
workspaces
How an Open SWE workspace's sandbox image works and how to change it — create one, edit or fork an existing one, start from scratch, what setupscript and updatescript are for, why a nightly refresh failed, where the build logs are, and how to read a rebuild in progress. Read this whenever someone asks about…