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/szarkans/multi/code-reviewnpx skills add szarkans/multi --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/szarkans/multiWhat 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 | $0.00093 | $0.04694 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.02347 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00939 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00469 |
Grade C, and why
code-review scanned grade C with 1 finding against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Recursive force deletehighDestructive command
rm -rf with a variable or a broad path is one typo away from removing the wrong tree.
# re-running snapshot — a re-run rm -rf's and rebuilds the dir while the How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 343 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Multi-model code review
!sh -c 'for p in "$CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT/scripts" "$HOME/.claude/skills/multi/scripts" "./.claude/skills/multi/scripts"; do [ -x "$p/probe.sh" ] && { "$p/probe.sh"; echo "scripts-dir: $p"; exit 0; }; done; echo "probe: NOT FOUND — locate scripts/probe.sh in this plugin and run it yourself"'
Several models read the same code, and you decide what reaches the user. That is the whole idea: one model invents problems and walks past real ones, and you cannot tell which from a single report. Independent models disagree, and the disagreement is the signal.
You are the judge, not a dispatcher. The reviewers propose; they do not vote, and none of them gets the last word. When they conflict, open the code and decide.
This is normally reached at the end of a session — work is done, PR or push comes next. Act like it: the question is "is this ready", not "here are some observations".
$SCRIPTS below is whatever the probe printed as scripts-dir:.
The gate
From the probe lines above — they are already there, do not re-run it.
No second reviewer family → stop. This is multi-model review; the review
pipeline can run two non-Claude families, Codex and OpenCode — without at
least one of them there is nothing here that a single-model review does not
already do. OpenRouter and Gemini are real second families, but this pipeline
cannot run them as reviewers yet: they serve /multi:ask, not this skill.
Say which is missing and point at /multi:setup. Do not quietly deliver a
one-model review wearing a three-model label.
Anything else missing is a note, not a stop: no OpenCode, no ponytail, not a git repo (fine — then the target is files, not a diff). Name what was missing in the report and carry on.
Whatever is missing, point them at /multi:setup to connect it — it walks
through this step by step and does not need them to know any of the above.
Decide what you are reviewing
Whatever the user named. A diff, a branch, two files, one function, a line range, a module nobody has touched in three years, the whole repository. There is no fixed vocabulary here and no menu — read what they wrote and work out what they mean, the way a colleague would.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 343 lines · 93 tokens per session scan C 38dda7430a12
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository szarkans/multi (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 4,694 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (recursive force delete). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-memory
../../../engineering/agent-memory/skills/agent-memory/SKILL.md.
agile-product-owner
../../../product-team/agile-product-owner/skills/agile-product-owner/SKILL.md.
amazon-reviews-api-skill
This skill helps users automatically extract Amazon product reviews via the Amazon Reviews API. Agent should proactively apply this skill when users express needs like getting reviews for Amazon product with ASIN B07TS6R1SF, analyzing customer feedback for a specific Amazon item, getting ratings and comments for a…
ai-security
../../../engineering-team/skills/ai-security/SKILL.md.
amazon-competitor-analyzer
Scrapes Amazon product data from ASINs using browseract.com automation API and performs surgical competitive analysis. Compares specifications, pricing, review quality, and visual strategies to identify competitor moats and vulnerabilities.
ctf-malware
Provides malware analysis and network traffic techniques for CTF challenges. Use when analyzing obfuscated scripts, malicious packages, custom crypto protocols, C2 traffic, PE/.NET binaries, RC4/AES encrypted communications, YARA rules, shellcode analysis, memory forensics for malware (Volatility malfind, process…