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 timjensgrossinger/threnody --skill threnody-fast-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/timjensgrossinger/threnodyWrote 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/timjensgrossinger/threnody/threnody-fast-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/timjensgrossinger/threnody/threnody-fast-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/timjensgrossinger/threnody/threnody-fast-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/timjensgrossinger/threnody/threnody-fast-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/timjensgrossinger/threnody/threnody-fast-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 | $0.00064 | $0.00811 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00405 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00162 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00081 |
Grade A, and why
threnody-fast-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 12d 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Threnody fast review
Purpose
Use this when a review spans many files and should not collapse into a tiny
number of agents. This mode trades the deeper file × dimension review swarm
for faster file-level parallelism:
wave 1: one read-only review agent per file
wave 2: one synthesis agent
This is the default for broad swarm review. Use threnody-swarm-review only
when the user explicitly asks for deep review, security-critical audit,
threat-modeling, or a named specialist dimension.
Tiering is medium by default. Ordinary risk words such as auth, token, or secret add security attention inside the file reviewer but do not automatically force high tier. High tier is reserved for explicit deep/security-critical wording, concrete exploit primitives, or large/dense files.
The global swarm.max_agents cap still applies. If the requested count is
clamped, report the requested_vs_effective_agent_count field and tell the
operator which files were not reviewed.
Workflow
0. Resolve files
Use file paths from the user's message. If none are provided, resolve changed source files:
git diff --name-only HEAD
git diff --name-only --cached
Filter out generated files, lock files, binary assets, Markdown docs, and large schemas unless the user explicitly asks to review them.
1. Run cheap deterministic checks
Run relevant linters or type checks first when available. Keep failures as context for synthesis; do not stop the swarm solely because a linter found findings.
2. Call execute_swarm
Use the FAST_REVIEW: sentinel and request one agent per file plus one synthesis
agent:
execute_swarm(
task="FAST_REVIEW: <space-separated file paths>",
topology="dag",
max_agents=<number_of_files + 1>,
)
The sentinel activates fast file-level review in the heuristic planner.
3. Execute host_spawn_waves
On awaiting_host_execution: true + host_spawn_waves:
- Spawn every wave-1 agent in parallel.
- Pass each agent its
prompt,model,tier,subagent_type, and target file. - Keep review read-only. Never
WriteorEditreviewed files. - Run the synthesis wave after all file agents finish.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 105 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A ced02eb20e20
threnody-fast-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository timjensgrossinger/threnody (2 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 811 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
skillshare-codebase-audit
Cross-validate CLI flags, docs, tests, and targets for consistency across the codebase. Use this skill whenever the user asks to: audit the codebase, check for consistency issues, find undocumented flags, verify test coverage, validate targets.yaml, check handler split conventions, or verify oplog instrumentation.…
testing-anti-patterns
Reviews test code to identify and fix common testing anti-patterns including flaky tests, over-mocking, brittle assertions, test interdependency, and hidden test logic. Flags bad patterns, explains the specific defect, and provides corrected implementations. Use when reviewing test code, debugging intermittent or…
structured-code-review
Performs a structured five-stage code review covering requirements compliance, correctness, code quality, testing, and security/performance. Each stage uses targeted checklists and categorized feedback (Blocker/Major/Minor/Nit) with actionable suggestions and rationale. Use when the user asks for code review, PR…
audit
Audits recent work against its Definition of Done and project patterns. Runs the test suite, compares code against the spec, and reports PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL. Also runs the Critical Gate — a safety scan of the diff for destructive or dangerous operations. Generates an incremental prompt pack for any gaps found. With…
quality-gates
Expert knowledge in quality assurance gates, code quality standards, and automated checks. Use when enforcing quality standards.
am-agent-security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.