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 tomimor/skills --skill miguel-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tomimor/skillsWrote 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/tomimor/skills/miguel-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomimor/skills/miguel-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomimor/skills/miguel-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/tomimor/skills/miguel-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomimor/skills/miguel-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 | $0.00062 | $0.00752 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00376 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00150 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
miguel-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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Miguel Review
Review the current branch's diff with a bias toward simplicity, small diffs, and deleting code.
Critical Rules
- No changes = no review. If
git diffis empty, inform the user and stop. - Read before judging. For non-trivial changes, read surrounding context before flagging issues.
- Opinionated, not hostile. Be direct about problems. Never make it personal.
Core Heuristics
- Deletions over additions. Removing code is often the best change.
- Minimal diffs. The smallest change that solves the problem completely.
- Explicit over implicit. No magic, no hidden behavior, no surprises.
- Fail fast. Clear errors at boundaries, not silent failures deep in the stack.
- The Deletion Test: For each new file -- is it necessary, or could existing code be extended? For each new function -- is it called more than once? If not, inline it. For each new parameter -- is there a concrete use case today?
- No dead code. Commented-out code, unused imports, unreachable branches, stale TODOs -- delete them. Git remembers.
Workflow
Step 1: Gather the Diff
If the user provides a base branch, use it. Otherwise default to main.
BRANCH=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)
BASE=${USER_PROVIDED_BASE:-main}
git log $BASE...HEAD --oneline
git diff $BASE...HEAD --stat
git diff $BASE...HEAD
If no commits or diff exist between the branch and base, inform the user and stop.
Step 2: Analyze
Walk through the diff checking each of these. Skip any that don't apply:
- Purpose: What problem does this solve? Is the problem real and current?
- Scope: Does every file change serve the stated purpose? Flag drive-by fixes.
- Complexity: Count new abstractions. Each needs justification. If code needs a comment to explain, it might need simplification instead.
- Dead code: Commented-out code, unused variables/imports/functions, single-value feature flags, unreachable branches.
- Naming: Can you understand each function from its name alone? Are variable names specific (
userIdnotid)? - Deletion test: Apply the heuristic above to every new file, function, and parameter.
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 89 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A e3ee7acb93e2
miguel-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomimor/skills (2 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 752 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
buyer-job-intent-analysis
Recover source-bound buyer jobs, struggling moments, desired progress, forces, workarounds, information acts, journey states, criteria, constraints, roles, locales, and authentic language. Use on approved ICP hypotheses plus customer, search, review, forum, procurement, support, or public-market evidence before…
sonarqube-mcp
Provides SonarQube and SonarCloud integration patterns via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. Enables quality gate monitoring, issue discovery and triaging, pre-push code analysis, and rule education directly in the agent workflow. Use when the user wants to check quality gates, search for Sonar issues, analyze…
nestjs-code-review
Provides comprehensive code review capability for NestJS applications, analyzing controllers, services, modules, guards, interceptors, pipes, dependency injection, and database integration patterns. Use when reviewing NestJS code changes, before merging pull requests, after implementing new features, or for…
nextjs-code-review
Provides comprehensive code review capability for Next.js applications, validates Server Components, Client Components, Server Actions, caching strategies, metadata, API routes, middleware, and performance patterns. Use when reviewing Next.js App Router code changes, before merging pull requests, after implementing…
react-code-review
Provides comprehensive code review capability for React applications, validates component architecture, hooks usage, React 19 patterns, state management, performance optimization, accessibility compliance, and TypeScript integration. Use when reviewing React code changes, before merging pull requests, after…
pr-review-comments
Posts review findings from a JSON file as inline comments on a GitHub Pull Request, attaching each comment to its file and line. Use when you have a list/JSON of review findings (each with a file path, line number, and a message such as summary/failurescenario) and want them published on a PR as inline review…