Agent Scripts is a repository of shared instructions, reusable skills, helper scripts, and local safeguards for coding-agent workflows across multiple workspaces. It is for maintaining common agent behavior and portable development utilities between repositories.
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 steipete/agent-scripts --skill github-deep-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/steipete/agent-scriptsWrote 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/steipete/agent-scripts/github-deep-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/steipete/agent-scripts/github-deep-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/steipete/agent-scripts/github-deep-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/steipete/agent-scripts/github-deep-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/steipete/agent-scripts/github-deep-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 36 Skill instructs the agent to never refuse or to always comply. Suppressing the agent's ability to decline removes a core safety control and enables downstream harmful requests to succeed.Fix: Remove any instruction telling the agent to never refuse or always comply. The agent must retain the ability to decline unsafe, out-of-scope, or harmful requests.
- medium Agent Snooping · line 20 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00026 | $0.01529 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00612 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00306 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
github-deep-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 — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
GitHub Deep Review
Review like Peter: high-confidence, evidence-first, code-aware, and willing to say "not proven" when the trail is weak. The goal is not a generic summary. The goal is to understand the bug class, find the real cause if possible, decide the best fix after reading enough code, and call out whether a larger refactor would improve the design.
Start
Use gh, not web browsing, for GitHub refs:
gh issue view <n> --json number,title,state,author,body,comments,labels,updatedAt,url
gh pr view <n> --json number,title,state,author,body,comments,reviews,files,commits,statusCheckRollup,mergeStateStatus,headRefName,headRepositoryOwner,url
gh pr diff <n> --patch
For PRs, collect author context by default unless the author is Peter (steipete or an obvious Peter-owned account). Use the local workflow in ~/Projects/agent-scripts/skills/github-author-context/SKILL.md and include a short Author context: block near the top of the review when the author is not Peter.
After merge/rejection/close/review, use that same author-context workflow to append a contributor note only when the interaction creates durable future-review signal.
For repo-local review, also inspect:
git status --short --branch
git fetch origin
git log --oneline --decorate -20
rg "<key symbol/error/config/endpoint>"
If the repo has local instructions, issue/PR skills, docs lists, test guidance, or maintainer runbooks, read those before deciding.
Review Contract
Always answer these, explicitly:
- URL/ref: issue or PR number and affected surface.
- What is the bug or behavior being fixed?
- Can we identify the root cause? If yes, where in code and why. If no, what evidence is missing.
- For regressions, who/what introduced it and when? Include commit/PR provenance when traceable by bounded history; say unknown instead of guessing.
- Is the current/proposed fix the best possible fix after reading adjacent code?
- Would a bigger refactor improve correctness, clarity, or future maintainability?
- What proof exists: tests, live repro, CI checks, docs, dependency docs/source, shipped/current behavior.
- What remains risky or unverified.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 126 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A bfad7e3dd87a
github-deep-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository steipete/agent-scripts (7,379 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,529 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…