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 stark-ai-de/agent-skills --skill dependency-update-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stark-ai-de/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/stark-ai-de/agent-skills/dependency-update-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stark-ai-de/agent-skills/dependency-update-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stark-ai-de/agent-skills/dependency-update-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/stark-ai-de/agent-skills/dependency-update-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stark-ai-de/agent-skills/dependency-update-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 | $0.00047 | $0.00588 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00294 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
dependency-update-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Dependency Update Review
Goal
Assess dependency and lockfile changes for compatibility, supply-chain risk, package-manager consistency, and targeted validation needs.
When to use
- A PR updates dependencies or lockfiles.
- The user asks whether an upgrade is safe.
- Package manager, runtime version, or dependency policy changes need review.
When not to use
- The task is broad security hygiene; use
security-baseline-review. - The user asks for a full PR review with dependency changes as one part; use
pr-review. - Current vulnerability status is required but advisory data is unavailable.
Inputs to inspect
- Manifest files, lockfiles, package-manager config, and runtime version files.
- Changelogs or release notes for direct dependency major updates.
- CI results, test coverage, and code paths using upgraded packages.
Review rubric
Check direct vs transitive changes, major version jumps, package manager consistency, postinstall scripts, binary/native dependencies, lockfile churn, and targeted test coverage. Read references/dependency-risk-rubric.md for detail.
Workflow
- Identify the package manager and changed dependency files.
- Separate direct dependency updates from transitive lockfile changes.
- Flag major upgrades and packages with build, native, auth, or network behavior.
- Check whether docs, config, or code need migration updates.
- Recommend targeted validation commands.
- Do not claim vulnerability status without current advisory evidence.
Safety rules
- Do not run broad upgrades, lockfile regeneration, or package-manager migrations unless asked.
- Do not claim current vulnerability status without checking current advisory sources.
- Do not print registry credentials or private package URLs from config.
References
Read only when needed:
references/dependency-risk-rubric.md
Scripts
No bundled scripts.
Output format
Return:
- Dependency change summary
- Risk assessment
- Required migration notes
- Targeted validation
- Blocking concerns
- Recommended next action
What ships with it
1 file 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.
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 · 87 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A bb87e3367851
dependency-update-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository stark-ai-de/agent-skills (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 588 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
openlore-execute-refactor
Apply a confirmed .openlore/refactor-plan.md with a test gate after each change. Use when asked to execute or continue an OpenLore refactoring plan.
openlore-review-changes
Review code changes using OpenLore risk, call, coverage, and cluster evidence without editing code. Use when asked for a change review, pre-PR safety check, or merge recommendation.
architect-init
Reverse-engineer architecture from an existing codebase to create ADRs documenting discovered decisions. Use when bootstrapping architecture documentation for brownfield projects.
architect-analyze
Analyze architecture for consistency between ADRs and AD, completeness, and quality issues. Use when validating generated or refined architecture artifacts, before feature development, during architecture review, or periodically to detect drift.
rescue
Delegate a substantial diagnosis, implementation, or follow-up task to Claude Code through the tracked-job runtime. Args: --background, --wait, --resume, --resume-last, --fresh, --write, --model , --effort , --prompt-file , [task text]. Defaults to opus with no forced effort. Use when Claude should investigate or…
adversarial-review
Run a design-challenging Claude Code review of local git changes in this repository. Args: --wait, --background, --base , --scope , --model , --effort , [focus text]. Defaults to opus with no forced effort. Use only when the user wants stronger scrutiny than a normal review, such as explicit tradeoff challenge…