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 tomsej/pi-ext --skill review-guardsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tomsej/pi-extWrote 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/tomsej/pi-ext/review-guards)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomsej/pi-ext/review-guards"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomsej/pi-ext/review-guards/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/tomsej/pi-ext/review-guards"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomsej/pi-ext/review-guards.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 | $0.00079 | $0.01406 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00562 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00281 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00141 |
Grade A, and why
review-guards 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 1mo 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review-guards — turn review rules into guards
Goal: a review rule stated once should never depend on a reviewer's memory again. Mechanical rules become ast-grep guards (exit code decides); everything else becomes written guidance reviewers receive automatically.
1. Triage each rule
| Rule kind | Destination |
|---|---|
Structural / mechanical ("no console.log outside logger", "every handler calls auth middleware", "no raw SQL in controllers") |
ast-grep rule |
| Type-aware or flow-sensitive | existing linter / tsc config — do NOT emulate a type checker with patterns |
| Qualitative (naming taste, architecture judgement) | REVIEW_GUIDELINES.md in repo root — the /review extension and review subagents pick it up |
If a rule can't name a concrete AST shape, it is not an ast-grep rule.
2. Project setup (once)
sgconfig.yml # ruleDirs: [.ast-grep/rules], testConfigs: [{testDir: .ast-grep/tests}]
.ast-grep/rules/ # one YAML per rule
.ast-grep/tests/ # one test per rule: valid + invalid snippets
Requires ast-grep on PATH (brew package, already in chezmoi packages).
3. Write each rule TDD-style
- Write the test FIRST:
.ast-grep/tests/<id>-test.ymlwithvalid:(must not match) andinvalid:(must match) snippets — the invalid one is the exact code from the review finding that motivated the rule. - Write
.ast-grep/rules/<id>.yml:id,language,severity: error,message(say WHY, not just what),rule:(pattern/kind/inside…). ast-grep test --skip-snapshot-tests— must printRunning N testswith your test INCLUDED and pass. Pitfall: a test whose rule id does not exist is silently skipped (0 passed, exit 0) — the count is the proof the test ran. A wrong rule fails loudly (non-zero exit). Optionally pin snapshots withast-grep test -Uand drop the flag afterwards.ast-grep scanon the repo: every existing hit is either fixed now or the rule's scope is narrowed — never ship a guard the codebase already violates.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 113 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A 3fc608de6e89
review-guards is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomsej/pi-ext (79 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 1,406 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
plugin-review
Review plugin quality with tiered checks and dependency scoping. Use for PR and pre-release audits.