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 SZoloth/skill-pack --skill agentic-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/SZoloth/skill-packWrote 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/szoloth/skill-pack/agentic-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/szoloth/skill-pack/agentic-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/szoloth/skill-pack/agentic-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/szoloth/skill-pack/agentic-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/szoloth/skill-pack/agentic-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 | $0.00071 | $0.02079 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00832 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00416 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00208 |
Grade A, and why
agentic-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 — 293 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agentic Code Review
Deep, multi-agent code review for personal repos. Analyzes changes, prioritizes files, spawns specialized review agents in parallel, and synthesizes actionable findings.
When to Use
- After writing significant code, before committing
- Before pushing a branch
- Reviewing specific commits
- Comparing branches (e.g., feature vs main)
Usage
# Review all local changes (staged + unstaged)
skill agentic-review
# Review only staged changes
skill agentic-review --staged
# Review specific commit(s)
skill agentic-review abc123
skill agentic-review abc123..def456
# Review branch diff against main
skill agentic-review --branch feature-branch
skill agentic-review --branch HEAD # current branch vs main
How It Works
Phase 1: Detect & Gather Changes
First, determine what to review based on arguments:
# Check if we're in a git repo
git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree 2>/dev/null || echo "NOT_GIT_REPO"
# Get current branch
git branch --show-current
# Check for changes
git status --porcelain # Any local changes?
git diff --stat # Unstaged changes stats
git diff --cached --stat # Staged changes stats
Determine review scope from $ARGUMENTS:
| Argument | What to Review |
|---|---|
| (empty) | All local changes (staged + unstaged) |
--staged |
Only staged changes |
abc123 |
Specific commit |
abc123..def456 |
Commit range |
--branch NAME |
Branch diff vs main/master |
--branch HEAD |
Current branch vs main/master |
Phase 2: Pre-Scan & Prioritize Files
Analyze changed files to recommend review order:
# Get changed files with stats
git diff --numstat HEAD~1 2>/dev/null || git diff --numstat
# For each file, assess:
# - Lines changed (more = higher priority)
# - File type (src > test > config > docs)
# - Risk areas (auth, security, data, API)
Prioritization Heuristics:
- HIGH: Security-related files (auth, crypto, permissions, secrets)
- HIGH: Core business logic (models, services, controllers)
- MEDIUM: API endpoints, data access
- MEDIUM: Configuration files that affect runtime
- LOW: Tests, documentation, styling
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 · 293 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 9b0b4e16c9a1
agentic-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository SZoloth/skill-pack (14 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 2,079 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
code-review-checklist
Genera un checklist de revisión de código personalizado para cualquier pull request basado en el lenguaje, tipo de cambio y nivel de riesgo. Úsalo cuando te pidan revisar código, verificar un PR, revisar un pull request o generar un checklist de revisión de código. Produce un checklist enfocado con verificaciones…
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
resolve-pr-comments
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using the rationale recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to "resolve PR comments", "fix review comments", "address…
review-code
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps and low-value tests by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the…
assess-technical-debt
Assess project-wide structural technical debt: complexity hotspots, deprecated API usage, duplication clusters, architecture rot, and low-value tests. Ranks findings by impact and refactor effort into a report at .turbo/technical-debt.md. Use when the user asks to "assess technical debt", "find technical debt"…
peer-review
Run an independent peer review via Codex. Use when the user asks to "peer review", "peer review my code", "peer review my plan", "get a second opinion", or "independent review".