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 summarybotng/summarybot-ng --skill sherlock-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/summarybotng/summarybot-ngWrote 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/summarybotng/summarybot-ng/sherlock-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/summarybotng/summarybot-ng/sherlock-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/summarybotng/summarybot-ng/sherlock-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/summarybotng/summarybot-ng/sherlock-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/summarybotng/summarybot-ng/sherlock-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 | $0.00051 | $0.01689 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00844 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00338 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00169 |
Grade A, and why
sherlock-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 5d 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 — 259 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Sherlock Review
<default_to_action> When investigating code claims:
- OBSERVE: Gather all evidence (code, tests, history, behavior)
- DEDUCE: What does evidence actually show vs. what was claimed?
- ELIMINATE: Rule out what cannot be true
- CONCLUDE: Does evidence support the claim?
- DOCUMENT: Findings with proof, not assumptions
The 3-Step Investigation:
# 1. OBSERVE: Gather evidence
git diff <commit>
npm test -- --coverage
# 2. DEDUCE: Compare claim vs reality
# Does code match description?
# Do tests prove the fix/feature?
# 3. CONCLUDE: Verdict with evidence
# SUPPORTED / PARTIALLY SUPPORTED / NOT SUPPORTED
Holmesian Principles:
- "Data! Data! Data!" - Collect before concluding
- "Eliminate the impossible" - What cannot be true?
- "You see, but do not observe" - Run code, don't just read
- Trust only reproducible evidence </default_to_action>
Quick Reference Card
Evidence Collection Checklist
| Category | What to Check | How |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | PR description, commit messages | Read thoroughly |
| Code | Actual file changes | git diff |
| Tests | Coverage, assertions | Run independently |
| Behavior | Runtime output | Execute locally |
| Timeline | When things happened | git log, git blame |
Verdict Levels
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
| ✓ TRUE | Evidence fully supports claim |
| ⚠ PARTIALLY TRUE | Claim accurate but incomplete |
| ✗ FALSE | Evidence contradicts claim |
| ? NONSENSICAL | Claim doesn't apply to context |
Investigation Template
## Sherlock Investigation: [Claim]
### The Claim
"[What PR/commit claims to do]"
### Evidence Examined
- Code changes: [files, lines]
- Tests added: [count, coverage]
- Behavior observed: [what actually happens]
### Deductive Analysis
**Claim**: [specific assertion]
**Evidence**: [what you found]
**Deduction**: [logical conclusion]
**Verdict**: ✓/⚠/✗
### Findings
- What works: [with evidence]
- What doesn't: [with evidence]
- What's missing: [gaps in implementation/testing]
### Recommendations
1. [Action based on findings]
What ships with it
2 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.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 259 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 9fe10d662f7f
sherlock-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository summarybotng/summarybot-ng (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,689 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
trace
Use when encountering bugs, test failures, runtime errors, broken builds, or "this doesn't work" reports. Systematic root-cause analysis before any patch — never blind-patches symptoms. Standalone, ends with a final-integration review of the fix. Trigger with /hyperflow:trace, "debug this", "find the root cause", "why…
systematic-debugging
Methodical bug investigation and root cause analysis.
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
differential-patch-review
Compare a candidate coding change with a trusted baseline or reference to detect observable behavioral divergence. Use when ordinary tests pass but semantic alignment remains uncertain.
bug-diagnosis
Use this skill to systematically diagnose the root cause of a bug before attempting a fix. Activates when a bug is reported, a test is failing, or unexpected behavior is observed. Prevents guess-and-check debugging that introduces additional bugs while chasing symptoms.
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.