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 taurus42119-stack/godkiller-mcp --skill review-securitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/taurus42119-stack/godkiller-mcpWrote 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/taurus42119-stack/godkiller-mcp/review-security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/taurus42119-stack/godkiller-mcp/review-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/taurus42119-stack/godkiller-mcp/review-security/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/taurus42119-stack/godkiller-mcp/review-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/taurus42119-stack/godkiller-mcp/review-security.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 | $0.00012 | $0.00777 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00311 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00155 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
review-security 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.
Copies of this mod
4 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- review-security — 100% identical, 2 lines differ
- review-security — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- review-bugbot — 86% identical, 57 lines differ
- review-bugbot — 86% identical, 33 lines differ
What it actually says
Review Security
Use this skill when the user asks to run /review-security.
Launch exactly one security-review subagent with:
run_in_background: falseunless explicitly asked to run in backgrounddescription: "Security Review"subagent_type: "security-review"
The review subagent computes the local diff from the repository path, so do not compute the diff yourself before launching it. The repository path should be the active workspace or repository root for the code the user wants reviewed.
By default, the review subagent infers the repository's actual base branch, such as main, when computing branch changes. In most cases, do not provide Base Branch. Only provide it if you know the current branch or PR should be compared against a specific branch other than the repository's default base branch, such as when you created the current branch from another branch.
Special case: if the user explicitly asks to review a specific PR or branch, make sure that target is checked out before launching the subagent:
- Examples include
github.com/... /review,review {link}, orreview {branch-name}. - Resolve the provided PR link, PR number, or branch name to the PR head branch or named branch.
- Check whether the target branch is already the currently checked out local branch. If it is, continue.
- If a different branch is currently checked out, try to switch to the target branch.
- If Git refuses to switch because local files would be overwritten, conflicts need resolution, or another checkout blocker occurs, explain the blocker and ask whether the user wants to stash local changes before retrying.
- Only stash after the user confirms. If the stash succeeds, retry switching to the target branch.
- Launch the review subagent only after the target branch is checked out locally.
Use this exact prompt shape:
Full Repository Path: <absolute repository path>
Diff: <one of: "branch changes", "uncommitted changes">
Base Branch: <only include this line when reviewing branch changes against a known specific base branch>
Custom Instructions: <only include this line when the user gave specific review instructions>
Default to branch changes, which reviews branch changes against the merge-base with the default/base branch, including committed, staged, and unstaged changes. If the user asks to review only uncommitted, local working tree, dirty, or not-yet-committed changes, use uncommitted changes.
If the review subagent fails before producing findings, inspect the failure text.
- If the failure is caused by calling the subagent incorrectly, such as a missing
Full Repository Path, missingDiff, wrong prompt shape, or wrong subagent type, correct the invocation and retry it once immediately. - For any other subagent failure, retry once with the same prompt shape.
- If the same failure persists after the retry, stop. Briefly tell the user that the review subagent could not complete and include the short error or blocker. Do not keep retrying.
After the subagent finishes, summarize the result:
- If it reports that no diff was found or the diff is empty, tell the user in one sentence that there was no diff to review.
- If it found no issues, give a one-line status such as "Security review found 2 findings / Security review found no issues".
- If it found issues, print a compact markdown table with one row per finding, sorted by severity (highest first), using exactly these columns: Severity, Location (file:line), Finding. Put the file and line in the location column as
file:line.
Do not fix findings or rerun review unless the user explicitly asks for that next step.
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 · 52 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A d007ec5a617e
review-security is a skill published in the GitHub repository taurus42119-stack/godkiller-mcp (28 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 777 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
agy-delegate
Delegate coding tasks to the Google Antigravity CLI (agy) only when the user explicitly requests it, while the orchestrator retains review and landing responsibility.
python-review-checklist
Deterministic Python review checklist shipped with the CAO skills-lifecycle example.
graph-it-live
Analyze code dependencies, call graphs, and architecture using the graph-it CLI. Use this skill whenever the user wants to understand how their code is connected — even if they don't say "dependency graph" explicitly. Trigger for: "what calls this function", "who uses this class", "is it safe to delete X", "what…
pr-review
Review pull requests and Git diffs with Graph-It-Live risk, breaking-change, dependency-impact, cycle, unused-export, and test-candidate evidence. Use when asked to review a PR, inspect a diff, assess merge risk, check a branch before merging, create a Graph-It-Live review gate, or explain review-pr results. Trigger…
code-review-and-quality
A code-review guide for checking changes across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance before they are merged.
doubt-driven-development
A development practice that puts an independent, fresh-context challenge in front of important coding decisions.