Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to theshadow27/mcp-cli. 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/theshadow27/mcp-cli/main/.claude/skills/coherence-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/theshadow27/mcp-cliWrote 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/theshadow27/mcp-cli/coherence-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/theshadow27/mcp-cli/coherence-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/theshadow27/mcp-cli/coherence-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 | $0.00052 | $0.00883 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00441 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00177 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
coherence-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 8d 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Coherence Review
Review a batch of related PRs for architectural consistency. Catches integration issues early — before multiple sessions build on top of a flawed foundation.
Input
A feature area description and/or PR numbers. Parse from: $ARGUMENTS
Examples:
/coherence-review auth overhaul PRs #301 #305 #310 #312/coherence-review daemon session lifecycle/coherence-review 350 351 352 353
When to Run
- After every 3-4 issues in the same feature area merge
- When a session's cost exceeds $15 (sign of complexity/struggle)
- When you suspect related PRs may have diverged architecturally
Workflow
1. Gather Context
If PR numbers were provided, fetch each:
gh pr view <number> --json title,body,files,mergedAt
gh pr diff <number>
If only a feature area was provided, find recent merged PRs in that area:
gh pr list --state merged --limit 20 --json number,title,files,mergedAt
Filter to PRs that touch relevant files. Build a picture of what changed across the batch.
2. Review for Architectural Consistency
For each concern below, compare across all PRs in the batch:
Consistent patterns
- Do the PRs use the same approach for the same problem? (e.g., error handling, logging, IPC patterns)
- Are naming conventions consistent across the changes?
- Do similar features follow the same structure?
Integration points
- Do the PRs interact correctly where they touch shared code?
- Are there missing integration points where PRs should connect but don't?
- Did any PR change an interface that another PR depends on?
Duplicated work
- Did multiple PRs implement the same or similar functionality?
- Are there new utilities or helpers that overlap with existing ones?
- Could shared abstractions reduce duplication?
Wrong directions
- Does any PR introduce a pattern that contradicts the project's conventions?
- Are there changes that will be painful to maintain or extend?
- Did any PR optimize for the wrong thing (e.g., premature abstraction, unnecessary flexibility)?
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 106 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A ec781d966b42
coherence-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository theshadow27/mcp-cli (2 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 883 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
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.
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…