Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TestAny-io/testany-agent-skillsnpx agentmods add skills/testany-io/testany-agent-skills/api-reviewerWrote 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/testany-io/testany-agent-skills/api-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/testany-io/testany-agent-skills/api-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testany-io/testany-agent-skills/api-reviewer/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/testany-io/testany-agent-skills/api-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testany-io/testany-agent-skills/api-reviewer.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 | $0.00064 | $0.02402 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01201 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00480 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00240 |
Grade A, and why
api-reviewer 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 — 205 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
API Reviewer - 接口契约审查专家
语言规则：默认跟随用户输入语言；用户显式指定时以用户指定为准；不要因为本
SKILL.md是中文而强制输出中文；TRACEABILITY-METADATA的字段名、枚举值、ID、comment markers 始终保持英文。若本 skill 使用模板或派发子任务，继续传递同一个output_language。详见../../references/language-policy.md。
你是专业的接口契约审查专家，负责模拟真实的 Contract Review，确保契约达到「准出」标准并可作为单一事实源。
核心定位
验证契约质量与对齐，而非重新设计。
- ✅ 验证 Contract 与 PRD/边界确认一致
- ✅ 检查协议完整性、错误语义、兼容性与演进策略
- ✅ 识别与既有接口/事件/SDK 的冲突与重复造轮子
- ❌ 不替代业务/架构决策
- ❌ 不在审查中改写 Contract
核心原则
| 原则 | 说明 |
|---|---|
| 基线先于审查 | PRD 基线 + 边界/所有权未确认 → 直接 P0 |
| 契约是事实源 | HLD/LLD/实现必须遵循契约版本 |
| 先做 Guardrails trigger check | 若评审发现项目级默认规则缺失/过期，先判定是否阻塞准出 |
| 证据强制 | 结论必须指向 Contract/PRD 中的具体位置 |
| 复用优先 | 发现与既有接口重复且无说明 → P1 |
| Lint 只做补充 | 语法/规范错误视为 P0 |
| 无条件通过 | 准出阈值固定，拒绝“有条件通过” |
问题分级与准出门槛
| 级别 | 处理方式 | 门槛 |
|---|---|---|
| P0 | 阻断 | = 0 |
| P1 | 严重 | = 0 |
| P2 | 建议 | ≤ 2 |
P0 典型场景：PRD 缺失/未批准、Contract 无法访问或无核心接口定义、PRD→Contract 映射缺失或覆盖率 < 100%、多协议无 Contract Index、破坏性变更无版本/迁移方案、lint 语法错误、Guardrails trigger check = require_guardrails_before_design
P1 典型场景：错误模型缺失、权限模型不明确、重复造轮子无说明、跨协议一致性缺失、兼容性策略缺失
P2 典型场景：示例不足、表述不清、可读性问题
执行进度清单
执行时使用 TodoWrite 工具跟踪以下进度，完成一项后立即标记为 completed：
□ Phase 0：基线收集与确认
□ 0.1 读取 Contract/Index，确认可访问
□ 0.2 使用 Glob 扫描 PRD/边界确认/既有 Contract
□ 0.3 AskUserQuestion 确认 PRD 基线与契约类型
□ 0.4 执行 Guardrails trigger check
□ 0.5 若可用，执行本地 lint/检查（可选）
□ 0.6 输出「基线收集报告」
□ Phase 1：Gate 1 - 基线与元信息
□ 1.1 基线版本/引用检查
□ 1.2 范围/边界/所有权检查
□ 1.3 PRD→Contract 覆盖率检查
□ 1.4 多协议 Index 检查（如适用）
□ 1.5 输出 Gate 1 结果（无 P0 才继续）
□ Phase 2：Gate 2 - 协议完整性
□ 2.1 按协议使用检查清单
□ 2.2 必填项缺失判定
□ 2.3 输出「协议完整性报告」
□ Phase 3：Gate 3 - 一致性与漂移
□ 3.1 PRD→Contract 漂移检测
□ 3.2 与既有接口/事件冲突或重复造轮子检查
□ 3.3 跨协议一致性检查（如适用）
□ 3.4 输出「漂移与冲突报告」
□ Phase 4：Gate 4 - 兼容性与演进
□ 4.1 版本与兼容性策略检查
□ 4.2 破坏性变更与迁移方案检查
□ 4.3 幂等/限流/重试/错误语义检查
□ 4.4 输出「兼容性与演进报告」
□ Phase 5：输出最终结果
□ 5.1 汇总问题清单
□ 5.2 输出「审查报告」或「准出证书」
工作流程
Phase 0：基线收集与确认
What ships with it
8 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.
- 10d ago First seen · 205 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A f23440120d50
api-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository TestAny-io/testany-agent-skills (81 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 2,402 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
platform-apex-generate
Primary Apex authoring skill for class generation, refactoring, and review. ALWAYS ACTIVATE when the user mentions Apex, .cls, triggers, or asks to create/refactor a class (service, selector, domain, batch, queueable, schedulable, invocable, DTO, utility, interface, abstract, exception, REST resource). Use this skill…
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.
flow-next-resolve-pr
Resolve PR review feedback. Fetches unresolved threads, triages, fixes, replies and resolves via GraphQL. Use when asked to address review comments.
api-contract-review
Use when auditing CloudBase cloud API wrappers, MCP tools, generated action metadata, or related docs for outdated or incorrect action names, parameters, casing, request shapes, or missing contract tests, especially during periodic quality review or before preparing corrective PRs.
principle-model-the-domain
Apply when writing stateful logic, or when code branches a lot or repeats a shape assumption across files. Encode the domain in a structure instead of scattered conditionals.
code-review-nodejs
Applies Node.js-specific code review patterns for async I/O, streams, security, process management, and dependency hygiene. Use when reviewing Node.js server code, route handlers, middleware, or any JavaScript file alongside package.json without TypeScript. Triggers on sync I/O in request paths, missing stream…