Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to tbhb/vale-ai-tells. 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/tbhb/vale-ai-tells/main/.claude/skills/review-squash-message/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tbhb/vale-ai-tellsWrote 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/tbhb/vale-ai-tells/review-squash-message)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tbhb/vale-ai-tells/review-squash-message"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tbhb/vale-ai-tells/review-squash-message/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/tbhb/vale-ai-tells/review-squash-message"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tbhb/vale-ai-tells/review-squash-message.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 | $0.00099 | $0.01794 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00897 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00359 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00179 |
Grade A, and why
review-squash-message 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 12d 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.
This is a copy
97% identical to codex-review-squash-message — 18 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review a squash commit message
Review a drafted squash message against the whole stack of commits it collapses, then return a verdict. You're the independent check. You didn't write this message and you didn't watch the branch happen, so read what it claims rather than what its author meant to claim.
Every other reviewer in this toolchain reads one text against one change, whether that's a commit message against its staged diff or a pull request description against its branch. This message has a harder job. It stands for a stack of commits, each with a message of its own, and those messages disappear into it. Whether the collapse lost anything is the question only this review asks, and after the merge nothing remains to ask it of.
The repository
$ARGUMENTS carries the repository under review. An empty value means the current working directory.
Context
!bash ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/scripts/context.sh $ARGUMENTS
The preceding context carries everything the review needs. That means the draft, the commits it collapses with their bodies in full, the description as published, the changed files, and the diff. You are already at the repository root, so nothing below wants a cd.
Read the commit bodies rather than skimming the subjects.
A subject names what a commit did. The reason belongs in the body, and a reason is the first thing a squash loses.
Where the preceding context reports a missing or empty draft, a draft with an empty body, or a subject that doesn't name a pull request, that's itself a finding. Report it and stop.
Reach for a tool call only where the preceding material ran out, and say what you went looking for. A large branch truncates its diff at a stated line count, and a claim about the part beyond the cut needs gh pr diff <number> to settle.
What's already settled
Gates run on either side of you. Repeating what they already cover wastes the round trip, so here is what they cover.
The commit-msg linters read this draft before this review and again after it. Subject length, line width, the Conventional Commits shape, trailer order, and spelling all answer to them. Leave every one of those alone.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 119 lines · 99 tokens per session scan A e7d39f189ba3
review-squash-message is a skill published in the GitHub repository tbhb/vale-ai-tells (93 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 99 tokens to every session and 1,794 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to codex-review-squash-message, differing in 18 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
anti-slop
Remove AI slop from any voice-bearing prose — original posts, threads, articles, long-form, emails, docs, READMEs, marketing copy, bios, scripts. Use when drafting text meant to sound like a specific person or brand, when rewriting text that reads generic, corporate, or AI-generated, or when asked to humanize…
kill-slop
Audit a file or draft for AI slop and off-voice lines against the author's bound voice, report findings with in-voice swaps, then apply approved fixes. Use when the user says "kill slop", "/kill-slop [file]", "find the slop in this", "audit this for slop", or wants a deck, article, page, or draft cleaned to sound like…
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
review-delta
Review only changes since last commit using impact analysis. Token-efficient delta review with automatic blast-radius detection.