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 telus-labs/stagecraft --skill review-rubricgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/telus-labs/stagecraftWrote 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/telus-labs/stagecraft/review-rubric)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/telus-labs/stagecraft/review-rubric"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/telus-labs/stagecraft/review-rubric/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/telus-labs/stagecraft/review-rubric"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/telus-labs/stagecraft/review-rubric.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 | $0.00058 | $0.00789 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00394 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00158 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
review-rubric 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 10d 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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Rubric
Use this skill when performing a code review. It defines the standard review checklist every reviewer must work through.
Mandatory Checks (every review)
1. Spec Compliance
- Does the code match
pipeline/design-spec.md? - Are all API contracts implemented as specified?
- Are there undocumented deviations? (BLOCKER if unexplained)
2. Correctness
- Are all edge cases from the spec handled?
- Are error paths handled and tested?
- Are there off-by-one errors, null dereferences, or type mismatches?
3. Security
- No secrets in code
- Input validation present
- Auth checks in place where spec requires them
- No SQL string concatenation
4. Test Coverage
- Does new behaviour have corresponding tests?
- Do tests actually test the behaviour (not just call the function)?
5. Readability
- Can a new team member understand this code in 5 minutes?
- Are complex sections commented?
Comment Classification
Every review comment must be one of:
BLOCKER — Must be fixed before this PR can merge. Use for: security issues, missing tests, spec violations, broken behaviour.
SUGGESTION — Would improve the code. Author's call. Use for: style preferences, minor optimisations, naming improvements.
QUESTION — Need clarification. Not blocking unless answered badly. Use for: unclear intent, possible oversight, design question.
Verdict
REVIEW: APPROVED — No blockers. May have suggestions.
REVIEW: CHANGES REQUESTED — One or more blockers. List them.
Scope
This rubric is for pipeline Stage 5 peer reviews — when dev agents review
each other's PRs during a /pipeline run. For standalone pre-merge review
of changes made outside the pipeline (direct edits, implement skill work,
/hotfix runs), use the pre-pr-review skill instead.
Gotchas (add failures here over time)
- Do not approve a PR just because it "looks fine". Work through the checklist.
- Do not raise the same point another reviewer already raised (read their review first).
- Do not BLOCKER a style preference. That's what linters are for.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 95 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 9a433bb449ea
review-rubric is a skill published in the GitHub repository telus-labs/stagecraft (6 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 789 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
codeck
Route explicit requests from a host coding agent to one or more locally configured AI executors through Codeck, attach Markdown or other project files, moderate cross-model consultation, expose disagreements, and synthesize traceable results. Use when the user explicitly names Codeck or asks to consult, compare, or…
code-review
Perform thorough code review and audit of implemented features. Compares implementation against the technical plan, checks for AI-specific risks, and provides actionable feedback. Activate for: review, audit, code quality assessment, security review.
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
pr-review-canvas
Create a OpenBitFun Canvas for reviewing a pull request, branch diff, or change set with Cursor-style diff cards, review maps, risk callouts, and focused reviewer flow. Use when the user asks for a PR review canvas, diff walkthrough, change-set overview, or visual review summary.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…