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 tao12345666333/ankaloop --skill gh-pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tao12345666333/ankaloopWrote 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/tao12345666333/ankaloop/gh-pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tao12345666333/ankaloop/gh-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tao12345666333/ankaloop/gh-pr-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/tao12345666333/ankaloop/gh-pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tao12345666333/ankaloop/gh-pr-review.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 | $0.00062 | $0.00657 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00263 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
gh-pr-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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
GitHub PR Review Skill
Review Pull Requests by fetching the diff, analyzing changes, and posting structured review comments.
Prerequisites
ghCLI authenticated (gh auth status)- Repository must be a git clone with a GitHub remote
Review Workflow
- Fetch PR metadata: Run
gh pr view <number> --json title,body,files,additions,deletions,author,baseRefName,headRefName - Fetch the diff: Run
gh pr diff <number>to get the full diff - Analyze the changes by category:
- Architecture: New files/modules, structural decisions
- Correctness: Logic bugs, edge cases, error handling
- Security: Input validation, secrets, auth
- Performance: Unnecessary allocations, N+1 queries, blocking I/O
- Style: Naming, consistency with codebase conventions
- Tests: Coverage, edge cases, test quality
- Produce a structured review (see format below)
Review Output Format
## PR Review: <title>
**PR**: #<number> | **Author**: <author> | **Branch**: <head> → <base>
**Files changed**: <count> | **+<additions>** / **-<deletions>**
### Summary
<1-2 sentence overview of what this PR does>
### 👍 Strengths
- <what's done well>
### 🔍 Issues Found
#### Critical
- [ ] <file>:<line> — <description>
#### Suggestions
- [ ] <file>:<line> — <description>
#### Nits
- <minor style/naming suggestions>
### 📋 Checklist
- [ ] Tests added/updated
- [ ] No secrets or credentials
- [ ] Error handling adequate
- [ ] Documentation updated if needed
### Verdict
<APPROVE | REQUEST_CHANGES | COMMENT> — <reasoning>
Posting the Review
After generating the review, offer to post it as a PR comment:
gh pr review <number> --comment --body "<review content>"
Or for approve/request-changes:
gh pr review <number> --approve --body "<review content>"
gh pr review <number> --request-changes --body "<review content>"
Tips
- For large PRs (>500 lines), focus on architectural decisions and critical issues first
- Check for consistency with the existing codebase patterns
- Look at test coverage relative to the complexity of changes
- Use
gh pr checks <number>to see CI status - When reviewing Python, pay attention to type hints, docstrings, and error handling
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 85 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 913f63cf33ff
gh-pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository tao12345666333/ankaloop (55 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 657 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
check
Reviews diffs, PRs, release readiness, and publishing follow-through. Use when asked to review, triage issues or PRs, or ship. Not for debugging root causes or prose.
antfu-create-pr
Create a reviewable GitHub pull request from the current branch with a Conventional Commits title, a concise evidence-based body, and before/after screenshots for UI changes. Use when asked to open, create, publish, or prepare a PR.
factory-babysit-pr
Experimental workflow for babysitting one explicitly authorized pull or merge request. Use to monitor its live review state and checks, fix actionable in-scope findings, and apply separate reply, approval, merge, and soak gates.
factory-review-prs
Experimental workflow for reviewing configured repositories' pull requests. Use for manual or scheduled PR triage, approval, or merge decisions.
comet-github-pr-review
A read-only review process for pull requests in Comet's GitHub repositories. A pull request is a proposed code change; the review checks its current code, related issue, comments, merge status, and automated checks.
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…