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 | $0.00983 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00393 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00197 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00098 |
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 20d 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 — 116 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, the largest and riskiest files are kept (ranked by exploit signals, then
risk signals, then LOC x density; listed order is only the last tiebreak), and the
rest are dropped. 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.
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.
- 20d ago Changed · +11 lines cf0868d054e8
- 1mo 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 20d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 983 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
audit
Audits recent work against its Definition of Done and project patterns, from a review package of the diff. Runs the test suite, compares code against the spec, tests scenarios, sabotages risk code, and reports PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL with a severity and a cause on every finding. Also runs the Critical Gate — a safety…
deep-review
Evidence-based deep code review rubric — severity + confidence findings across maintainability, correctness, security, performance, and testing. Push for ambitious structural simplification (code judo), not just local cleanup. Escalate hands-on triage to the code-reviewer agent.
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…
gh-address-comments
Triage and address open GitHub PR review and conversation comments using the gh CLI. Use when the user wants to "address PR comments", "resolve review threads", or "respond to reviewers" on the current branch's pull request.
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…
quality-gates
Expert knowledge in quality assurance gates, code quality standards, and automated checks. Use when enforcing quality standards.