Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to tangosdev/sm64ds-decomp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/tangosdev/sm64ds-decomp/main/.claude/skills/decomp-match-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tangosdev/sm64ds-decompWrote 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/tangosdev/sm64ds-decomp/decomp-match-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tangosdev/sm64ds-decomp/decomp-match-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tangosdev/sm64ds-decomp/decomp-match-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00146 | $0.08394 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00073 | $0.04197 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00029 | $0.01679 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00839 |
Grade A, and why
decomp-match-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 7d 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 — 522 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Decompilation match review
What the project is for — read this before you rank anything
sm64ds-decomp's goal, in the maintainer's words and in this order:
- A historically accurate representation of the C++ version of SM64DS, byte-matched to the
.nds. One goal, two halves, both required. - Portability.
- Readability.
The two halves of goal 1 are not equally defended. The byte match is falsifiable and gated;
the C++ accuracy is neither. match.py fails loudly when the bytes are wrong. Nothing fails
when a file byte-matches while spelling _ZN9ActorBasenwEj as a C identifier, declaring a
destructor int(char*), or leaving a member filed as a free function. That asymmetry is why
the C++ half rots, and it is what a human reviewer is for — everything the gates catch, they
already caught before you opened the diff.
The pass order below is review sequencing, not this ranking. Pass 0 runs first because it is the cheapest disqualifier and a fake match is a lie in the progress bar — not because bytes outrank structure. Do not read pass order as priority order.
Two consequences worth stating, because they resolve most ranking questions on their own:
- A byte-free fix that recovers original structure outranks a byte-free readability fix.
Both are free; only one delivers goal 1. Renaming
sp0→indexis free and welcome. Correctingextern int _ZN5ActorD2Ev(char*)to the signature the mangled name already states is also usually free — "a pointer and anintare both one register" — and it is primary work. Ask for the second at least as hard as the first. (Usually free, not always: signedness changes instruction selection and a float changes codegen wholesale, so it stays a verify-cycle question — see B1 — never a patch you hand over.) - When accuracy and readability conflict, accuracy wins, and this is the common case.
Unnatural store orders, odd-looking casts, and
staticon a callback are frequently what the original contained. The "Do NOT recommend these" section near the end is that principle in list form; it is not a list of exceptions, it is goal 1 outranking goal 3.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 522 lines · 146 tokens per session scan A 9dfd15c4fc76
decomp-match-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository tangosdev/sm64ds-decomp (147 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 146 tokens to every session and 8,394 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
godot-code-review
Use when reviewing GDScript or C# Godot code — checklist of best practices, common anti-patterns, and Godot-specific pitfalls.
animation-review
Reviews Godot Animation implementation for known pitfalls. Triggers AFTER implementation, when code involves AnimationPlayer, AnimationTree, AnimatedSprite2D, SpriteFrames, AnimationNodeStateMachine, BlendSpace, OneShot, callbackmodeprocess, or animation playback control (play/travel/start). Do NOT use this skill for…
tilemap-review
Reviews Godot TileMap implementation for known pitfalls. Triggers AFTER implementation, when code involves TileMapLayer, TileSet, TileSetAtlasSource, TileSetScenesCollectionSource, terrain painting, setcell, erasecell, getcelltiledata, collision polygons on tiles, or NavigationRegion2D with tile-based navigation. Do…
second-pass-review
Independent audit of sanitized specs in workspace/output/. Three parallel LLM-based reviewer roles check structural leakage, content contamination, and behavioral completeness. Run AFTER Layer 5 sanitization, BEFORE implementation handoff.
hz-unity-code-review
Reviews Unity code targeting Meta Quest and Horizon OS for performance issues, rendering best practices, and common VR pitfalls. Use during code review or when diagnosing Quest performance problems in Unity projects.
pwn-ai-agent-sast
Drive PWN::AI::Agent::SAST from pwneval.