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-db-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-db-changes)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomzx/agents/review-db-changes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/review-db-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-db-changes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/review-db-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 | $0.00090 | $0.05273 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.02109 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01055 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00527 |
Grade A, and why
review-db-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 6d 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 — 408 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Database Changes
Reviews a database change and reports findings. It answers one question: is this migration safe to run against production data? Covering lock behavior, reversibility, data-integrity constraints, backwards compatibility during rollout, data-change safety, index coverage, and destructive-statement guards.
A schema change that runs in milliseconds on an empty test database can take an exclusive lock on a large production table and stall every read and write behind it.
Likewise a data change computed from a query can match far more rows than intended.
This review checks for those failure paths before the migration runs.
It is the change-time companion to /review-pr, which keeps general code craft, and to /review-api-changes, which reviews the contract above the data.
This review is static: it does not run the migration, so behavior observed against a live database is /verify-pr's to prove.
Never run a destructive migration to review it, and never against a database whose contents matter.
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 (for example rendering the migration to SQL) can reachL3 - Executed. - The change to review, in one of these forms:
- a PR number plus repository (
/review-db-changes 42 acme/api), - a git diff ref (for example
origin/main..HEAD), - a worktree directory, or a changeset already in context.
- a PR number plus repository (
- The migration files at the base revision, so the applied schema can be compared.
- The database engine and version, and whether the target table is large or hot (from the PR description, an existing migration, or a table-size note).
- The ORM models or schema definition files, so drift between models and migrations can be checked.
.sdlc/features/N-<slug>/lifecycle.mdwhen one exists (optional; used for retention and state checks).
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.
- 6d ago Changed · -2 lines 0a76f6af7833
- 9d ago Changed · +12 lines c9452c5170b1
- 11d ago First seen · 398 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A 3fb609ce29cc
review-db-changes is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomzx/agents (13 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 5,273 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
triage-contributor-pr
Triage open pull requests from external contributors to prisma/orm and produce a per-PR verdict with evidence. Use when a maintainer asks to triage, evaluate, assess, or review the queue of incoming contributor PRs, to decide whether a fork PR is safe to run CI on, to check whether a PR is in scope for its version…
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
no-bare-casts
Writing as in TypeScript or TSX production code, modifying a file that contains a bare as cast, silencing a type error with a cast, encountering as unknown as, or reviewing a cast site.
review-prs
Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the team's reviewer checklist: PR title/description conventions, linked issue, logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks…
migration-review
Review database migration files when a change adds or modifies paths under migrations/. Use it before merge to collect forward, rollback, locking, and data-safety evidence.
product-direction
Judges feature requests, feature pull requests and your own proposals against a repository's written product direction, gives a cited verdict, and records each new no. Use when triaging, labelling or replying to a feature request or a feature pull request, including as an autonomous triage agent; when asked whether a…