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-designgit 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-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomzx/agents/review-cli-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/review-cli-design/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-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/review-cli-design.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 | $0.00030 | $0.01482 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00593 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00296 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00148 |
Grade A, and why
review-cli-design scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 18d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review CLI Design
Audits a cli-design.md artifact and reports findings across seven categories: requirements traceability, command surface, cross-command consistency, usability, error handling, output behavior, and convention fit.
This is the detailed review of the CLI interface design itself.
/review-requirements reviews cli-design.md alongside requirements.md at the requirements-alignment level and remains the gate in the SDLC pipeline.
Run this skill for a standalone or second-pass audit of the interface when the design is the primary artifact (a hand-authored design, or a re-audit after implementation feedback).
Prerequisites
- Apply the shared SDLC conventions in
skills/sdlc/references/shared.md. - If no argument is provided, locate the feature directory under
.sdlc/features/whose frontmatterissuefield references$ISSUE_NUMBER. .sdlc/features/N-<slug>/cli-design.md, or a CLI design provided in context or as a file path.sdlc/features/N-<slug>/requirements.md(optional, required for the traceability checks)- The template at
skills/sdlc/templates/features/cli-design.md(to check section completeness) - The repository's existing CLI framework and conventions, when one exists
Steps
- Read the CLI design from
.sdlc/features/N-<slug>/cli-design.mdif present, otherwise from context or as a file path. Readrequirements.mdtoo when available. - Identify issues in each of the applicable categories below.
- Report findings using the output format. Omit any category that has no findings.
- Write the findings to
.sdlc/features/N-<slug>/review-cli-design.mdwith frontmatterartifact: cli-design,verdict(approvedif there are no blocking findings,changes-requestedif the author must address findings,rejectedfor a fundamental flaw), andreviewed_at: <ISO date>, and the findings as the body, perskills/sdlc/references/shared.md. Record any unresolved open questions in the findings body.
Review Checklist
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.
- 18d ago Changed 94e4e8f10913
- 22d ago Changed · -1 lines 88f55ad5a4b5
- 25d ago Changed 365f2f905db3
- 28d ago First seen · 142 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A e37296ea32d9
review-cli-design is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomzx/agents (13 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,482 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-10-01.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
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…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…