Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to testdino-hq/testdino-mcp. 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/testdino-hq/testdino-mcp/main/.claude/skills/review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/testdino-hq/testdino-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/testdino-hq/testdino-mcp/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/testdino-hq/testdino-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testdino-hq/testdino-mcp/review/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/testdino-hq/testdino-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testdino-hq/testdino-mcp/review.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00787 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00394 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00079 |
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 11d 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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review $ARGUMENTS for bugs, correctness, and convention violations.
If $ARGUMENTS is "staged" or empty, review all staged/unstaged git changes.
Process
- Read CLAUDE.md — load project rules and conventions
- Read the target code — understand before judging
- Check against each category below — report only real issues with file:line references
Categories
MCP Protocol Compliance (highest priority)
- Does the tool return the correct response shape?
{ content: [{ type: "text", text: string }] } - Is
console.logused anywhere? (corrupts stdio — must beconsole.error) - Does the tool name match the routing in
index.ts? - Is the tool registered in both the
toolsarray AND the routing if-blocks? - Does
inputSchemaaccurately describe what the handler expects?
Tool Pattern Consistency
- Does the tool follow the same pattern as existing tools?
- Auth:
getApiKey(args)called first with proper error? - URL: Built via
endpoints.ts, not inline? - Response: Formatted with
JSON.stringify(response, null, 2)? - Error: Wrapped in try/catch with contextual message?
- Types: Consistent use of
String()/Number()for conversions?
Data Integrity
- Can any code path lose the API response silently?
- Are required parameters validated before the API call?
- Could a missing optional param cause the URL to be malformed?
- Are boolean params correctly converted to strings for query params?
Tool Descriptions (critical for AI agent usability)
- Is the tool description specific enough for an AI to choose correctly?
- Does every
inputSchemaproperty have adescription? - Are
enumvalues provided for fields with known options? - Are
requiredfields accurately marked? - Would an AI know when NOT to use this tool based on the description?
Security
- Is the PAT exposed in any error message or response?
- Are user inputs passed to URLs without sanitization?
- Are file paths validated before reading (for attachment tools)?
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 98 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 8ffdf415e700
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository testdino-hq/testdino-mcp (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 787 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…