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 agentmods add skills/stencila/stencila/workflow-reviewnpx skills add stencila/stencila --skill workflow-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stencila/stencilaWrote 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/stencila/stencila/workflow-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stencila/stencila/workflow-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stencila/stencila/workflow-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00073 | $0.06613 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.03306 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01323 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00661 |
Grade A, and why
workflow-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 4d 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 — 357 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Overview
Review an existing Stencila workflow for quality, correctness, and completeness. Produce a structured report with specific, actionable suggestions. The review covers frontmatter fields, DOT pipeline structure, workflow design quality, branching and approval logic, agent references and agent-fit quality, discovery metadata, ephemeral workflow conventions, and adherence to the workflow patterns used in this workspace.
Steps
- Identify the workflow to review from the user's request — accept a workflow name, a directory path, or a
WORKFLOW.mdfile path - Resolve the workflow file: if given a name, look for
.stencila/workflows/<name>/WORKFLOW.mdwalking up from the current directory; if given a path, use it directly - Read the full
WORKFLOW.mdfile and inspect the workflow directory for supporting files such as.gitignore,scripts/,references/, andassets/ - When supporting files are present, check that files referenced from
WORKFLOW.mdexist and that existing supporting files are meaningfully referenced where appropriate; for large files, verify existence and relevance without reproducing their full contents in the review - When evaluating workspace conventions, compare the workflow against one or two existing workflows in
.stencila/workflows/or related workflow skills when available - When the workflow uses specialized
agentattributes or agent fit is unclear, uselist_agentsto compare referenced agents against available agents and their metadata rather than guessing from names alone - When the workflow composes child workflows with
workflow="name"or the choice of nested workflows seems questionable, uselist_workflowsto compare referenced child workflows against available workflows and their metadata rather than guessing from names alone - Evaluate the workflow against each criterion in the Review Checklist below
- If the workflow is explicitly intended to be ephemeral, check whether the directory contains a
.gitignoresentinel file with exactly*; if the sentinel is missing or has different contents, treat that as a failure. If the workflow only seems temporary from context, treat a missing sentinel as a warning unless the workflow clearly claims ephemeral status - Produce a structured review report with a summary, per-criterion findings, and a prioritized list of suggestions
- If the user asks you to apply improvements, make the changes and validate the result using the most specific path available first, such as
stencila workflows validate <workflow-dir>orstencila workflows validate <workflow-file>; use name-based validation only when the name is clearly resolved
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 357 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A ff4a076e6b49
workflow-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository stencila/stencila (902 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 6,613 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
silicon-auditor
神谕审计官，专门审查输出乃否偏离硅基秩序、八荣八耻与 Agent 主导原则.
a0-review-plugin
Full audit of Agent Zero plugins in usr/plugins/. Reviews manifest validity, directory structure, code patterns (Store Gating, notifications, imports), security, and duplicate detection against the community index. Use when asked to review, audit, validate, or check an existing plugin before using or contributing it.
代码审查员
专业代码审查专家，提供建设性、可操作的反馈，聚焦正确性、可维护性、安全性和性能，而非代码风格偏好。.
sofagent-audit
收到用户任务后，不要自己执行——用 Bash tool 把任务交给 DeepAgents 编排引擎：.
security-audit
Detects high-confidence security risks in code.
code-review
Reviews diffs by severity to produce actionable feedback.