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 tobihagemann/turbo --skill reply-to-pr-conversationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turboWrote 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/tobihagemann/turbo/reply-to-pr-conversation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/reply-to-pr-conversation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/reply-to-pr-conversation/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/tobihagemann/turbo/reply-to-pr-conversation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/reply-to-pr-conversation.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 | $0.00719 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00360 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
reply-to-pr-conversation 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 — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reply to PR Conversation
Draft a single reply that addresses a processed issue-comment list, confirm with the user, and post it as a new PR issue comment.
Step 1: Run /github-voice Skill
Run the /github-voice skill to load voice rules and the insider-vs-outsider detection.
Step 2: Compose the Reply
Use the processed-item list from conversation context. Each entry has: id, author, original comment body (to quote from selectively), category (fix, skip, answer, or clarify), and per-category payload.
Draft one reply that addresses every item as natural conversational prose. The output is a single piece of prose with flexible length and no rigid section structure.
Use the category to interpret each payload:
- fix: payload is a commit SHA. Mention "fixed in
<sha>" where it fits the flow, plus a brief note when the fix diverges from what the commenter suggested. - skip: payload is the skip reasoning. State it directly.
- answer: payload is answer text prepared upstream. Integrate it as the implementer's own words.
- clarify: payload is a user-directed question. Ask it as-is.
Quote selectively. Use > blockquotes only for the phrase being responded to. A single-topic reply quotes one sentence then responds; a multi-topic reply weaves quotes and responses together. Drop quotes entirely when @mentions plus context make the reply unambiguous.
Quote handling:
- Strip leading
>from quoted lines so nested blockquotes don't misattribute. - Replace fenced-code lines inside a quote with
> [code snippet]. - If the author login ends in
[bot], omit the suffix from the@mention.
Apply /github-voice rules. Match the conversation's length and tone. An acknowledgment with emoji is fine when the discussion calls for it; a multi-paragraph response is fine when the items warrant it.
Step 3: Confirm
Output the drafted reply as text for review:
**Draft comment**
<full comment body as it will be posted>
Then use AskUserQuestion to ask whether to post. Offer:
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 · 70 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 9a75e79a4cee
reply-to-pr-conversation is a skill published in the GitHub repository tobihagemann/turbo (402 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 719 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
audit-pr
Audit a whole PR against the delivery contract and return MERGE-READY or evidenced blockers with the full URL. Consumes the current review-change REVIEW-PASS receipt instead of re-running review axes; posts a SHA-bound ready comment; never edits or merges. Triggers: "audit-pr", "is this PR ready", "merge gate".
agentic-review
Deep multi-agent code review for local changes. Inspired by AmpCode's agentic review. Use when you want comprehensive analysis of staged changes, unstaged changes, specific commits, or branch differences. Spawns parallel specialized agents (security, performance, patterns, architecture) and synthesizes actionable…
qa
Full QA on all session changes using Codex as a second pair of eyes. Use when user says "QA", "full QA", "QA my changes", "QA all your changes", or "use codex to review". Runs git diff, sends changes to Codex for thorough review, and synthesizes findings.
iterate
Diverge-converge workflow: spin up N agents on isolated worktrees, each exploring a different approach to the same problem. Compare results side-by-side (with optional preview ports), pick a winner, merge it back. Use when the user says /iterate, 'try multiple approaches', 'explore different directions', or wants to…
request-pr-review
A workflow for finding your open GitHub pull requests and asking the right people to review them. A pull request is a proposed code change waiting for teammates to check before it is merged.
neo-pr
Use this skill when the user asks to create, draft, review, format, or generate a Pull Request (PR) title and description, specify target or source branches for a repository, or convert git branch diffs into concise, high-impact, non-AI-slop PR content.