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 agentmods add skills/techygarg/lattice/reviewnpx skills add techygarg/lattice --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/techygarg/latticeWrote 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/techygarg/lattice/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/techygarg/lattice/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/techygarg/lattice/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00095 | $0.02761 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.01380 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00552 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00276 |
Grade A, and why
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 6d 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 — 206 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Required Skills
Load/apply skills based on scope (see Step 2 for conditional loading):
framework:knowledge-priming-- Load project context (tech stack, architecture, conventions) to evaluate against real standards (always loaded)framework:learning-harvest-- Load prior operational learnings inform review; harvest new patterns at session end (always)framework:collaborative-judgment-- Surface borderline findings with both interpretations instead of silently classifying (always loaded)framework:clean-code-- Code craft: SRP, naming, complexity, error handling (always loaded)framework:architecture-- Structural: layer rules, dependency direction, architectural flows (conditional)framework:domain-driven-design-- Domain modeling: aggregates, entities, value objects (conditional)framework:secure-coding-- Security: trust boundaries, injection, secrets, input handling (conditional)framework:test-quality-- Test: AAA structure, isolation, assertions, naming (conditional)
Config Resolution
Review molecule supports optional config thru review-standards doc from review-refiner (or hand-written). Configures review process — not what atoms check (that's atom-level config via atom refiners).
Resolution steps:
- Look for
.lattice/config.yamlin repo root. - Check for config key
paths.review_standards. - If doc exists at path, read & check YAML frontmatter for
mode:mode: overlay: Read embedded defaults first, then apply doc's sections on top. Sections matched by heading — custom replaces matching defaults, new appended.mode: override(or no mode): Custom doc full precedence. Must be comprehensive.
- If no config or no review-standards doc found, use embedded defaults thruout workflow (full backward compat — identical to review with no config).
Review-standards doc has 7 sections map to workflow steps:
| Section | Affects step |
|---|---|
| §1 Atom Loading Policy | Step 2 (Load Relevant Atoms) |
| §2 Severity Classification | Step 4 (Produce Report) |
| §3 Report Preferences | Step 4 (Produce Report) |
| §4 Scope Rules | Step 1 (Identify the Delta) |
| §5 Insight Capture Preferences | Step 5 (Harvest Learnings and Log Review) |
| §6 Health Log Preferences | Step 5 (Harvest Learnings and Log Review) |
| §7 Custom Review Dimensions | Step 3 (Run Targeted Validation) |
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 206 lines · 95 tokens per session scan A e016d6e8414a
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository techygarg/lattice (185 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 2,761 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
code-standards
Apply a disciplined engineering workflow to any code change. Use whenever implementing a feature, fixing a bug, or refactoring — before writing code, not after. Walks orient → baseline → smallest change → test → verify → self-review, and enforces language-agnostic hard gates (don't mass-reformat, keep the linter and…
gaia-issue-resolver
End-to-end plan → implement → review pipeline that takes one triaged Gaia issue to a merged-ready PR, with Kill Criteria on the issue and zero follow-up debt. Use when someone says: "resolve this issue", "take #N end-to-end", "work the P0 queue", "fix and ship this issue", "run the resolver", "close out this issue…
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.