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 tomzx/agents --skill review-cli-changesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tomzx/agentsWrote 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/tomzx/agents/review-cli-changes)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomzx/agents/review-cli-changes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/review-cli-changes/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/tomzx/agents/review-cli-changes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/review-cli-changes.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 | $0.00080 | $0.04682 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.01873 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00936 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00468 |
Grade A, and why
review-cli-changes 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 7d 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 — 396 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review CLI Changes
Reviews a change to a command-line interface and reports findings. It answers one question: is this CLI change safe to ship? Covering compatibility with the existing surface, consistency across commands, option and argument handling, output behavior, exit codes, error handling, configuration precedence, and shell integration.
It is the change-time counterpart to /review-cli-design: that skill reviews a cli-design.md artifact before implementation, this one reviews the implemented diff.
General code craft stays with /review-pr; criteria conformance stays with /verify-pr.
This review is static: it does not build or run the CLI, so a claim that needs the CLI executed is /verify-pr's to prove.
Prerequisites
- Apply the shared SDLC conventions in
skills/sdlc/references/shared.md(PR Review Reports for report location and posting rules). - Apply the shared evidence standard in
../sdlc/references/evidence.md. Static claims carryL1 - CitedorL2 - Ruled out; a decisive claim proven by a read-only command can reachL3 - Executed. Behavior observed by running the CLI is/verify-pr'sL4 - Reproduced. - The change to review, in one of these forms:
- a PR number plus repository (
/review-cli-changes 42 acme/cli), - a git diff ref (for example
origin/main..HEAD), - a worktree directory, or a changeset already in context.
- a PR number plus repository (
- The CLI's existing surface at the base revision, so the before/after can be compared (read with
git show <base>:<path>). .sdlc/features/N-<slug>/cli-design.mdwhen one exists (optional; used for surface-vs-design checks).- Grep access to the codebase for the CLI framework, its option definitions, and its test suite.
Skill attribution (GitHub)
Before posting to GitHub, read ../github-post-attribution/SKILL.md and append the footer for SKILL_DIR = review-cli-changes.
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.
- 7d ago Changed · -2 lines 3bac24cda59c
- 10d ago Changed · +12 lines cf228c753c2e
- 12d ago First seen · 386 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A be4f8927e5cf
review-cli-changes is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomzx/agents (13 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 4,682 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 2026-10-19.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…