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 suyoumo/ClawProBench --skill review-readinessgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/suyoumo/ClawProBenchWrote 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/suyoumo/clawprobench/review-readiness)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/suyoumo/clawprobench/review-readiness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/suyoumo/clawprobench/review-readiness/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/suyoumo/clawprobench/review-readiness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/suyoumo/clawprobench/review-readiness.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00036 | $0.00906 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00453 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00181 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
review-readiness 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 9d 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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Readiness Dashboard
Track process completeness per PR branch. Gate merges on evidence, not gut feel.
How it works
For each active PR branch, maintain a readiness state in projects/<owner>-<repo>/readiness/<branch-slug>.md:
---
type: review-readiness
repo: owner/repo
branch: feature-branch-name
pr_number: 123
updated_at: YYYY-MM-DD
---
# Review Readiness — PR #123
| Check | Status | Last Run | Score | Notes |
|-------|--------|----------|-------|-------|
| Code review | completed | 2026-03-28 | — | Approved by @alice |
| Tests | passing | 2026-03-28 | — | CI green, 3 new tests |
| Security review | completed | 2026-03-28 | 85/100 | 1 P3 finding (accepted) |
| QA review | pending | — | — | Not yet run |
| Linting | passing | 2026-03-28 | — | Zero warnings |
## Verdict: NOT READY
Missing: QA review
## Findings log
- [2026-03-28] Security: P3 — missing rate limit on new endpoint (accepted risk)
- [2026-03-28] Code review: approved, 2 nits addressed
When to use
Checking readiness: User asks "is this PR ready?" or "can I merge?"
- Read the readiness file for the branch
- If no file exists, create one with all checks as
pending - Present the dashboard
- If all checks passed: "Ready to merge."
- If checks missing: "Not ready. Missing: . Run
/security-reviewand/qa-reviewto complete."
After running a review skill: When /security-review or /qa-review completes, update the readiness file with the result and score.
In the morning brief: For PRs that are "READY TO MERGE" (approved + CI green), also check review readiness. If security or QA is missing, note it: "READY TO MERGE (code + CI), but security review not run."
Automated updates
The readiness file is updated by:
- Code review: when PR gets GitHub approval or changes-requested
- Tests: from CI status (green/red/pending)
- Security review: when
/security-reviewruns on the branch - QA review: when
/qa-reviewruns on the branch - Linting: from CI or manual
cargo clippy/eslintoutput
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 97 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A d9e4a538efab
review-readiness is a skill published in the GitHub repository suyoumo/ClawProBench (823 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 906 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
open-code-review
Performs AI-powered code review on Git changes using the ocr CLI from alibaba/open-code-review. Use when the user asks to review code, review a pull request, review staged/unstaged changes, review a commit, or compare branches for code quality issues. Produces line-level review comments and can automatically apply…
github
GitHub operations via gh CLI: issues, PRs, CI runs, code review, API queries. Use when: (1) checking PR status or CI, (2) creating/commenting on issues, (3) listing/filtering PRs or issues, (4) viewing run logs. NOT for: complex web UI interactions requiring manual browser flows (use browser tooling when available)…
meta-codereview-current-diff
Read the current uncommitted diff, run three independent reviewers (safety + tests-coverage + style) in parallel, then arbitrate a single BLOCK / BLOCKWITHOVERRIDE / PASSWITHNOTES verdict. Use before commit when you want a multi-perspective second-opinion instead of a single-reviewer agent loop.
code-changes
Change the user's own program, on their machine or through GitHub. Use when a request needs a change to the user's code (instrument tracing, wire the SDK, fix the agent behind a failing scenario, add a run parameter to a connected agent, version a hardcoded prompt) and not when the platform alone can do it (create a…
commit
Prepare and create git commits for dynobox. Use this skill whenever the user asks to commit, create a commit, suggest a commit message, stage changes, or prepare changes for review. Also use it when the user asks whether the changelog should be updated before committing.
pr-comment
Answer a maintainer's question about an open PR with concrete, code-cited evidence. The PR-side counterpart to issue-comment — for questions tied to the diff, not a full review.