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-requested-prsgit 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-requested-prs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomzx/agents/review-requested-prs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/review-requested-prs/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-requested-prs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/review-requested-prs.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 219 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00064 | $0.02522 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01261 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00504 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00252 |
Grade A, and why
review-requested-prs 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 — 223 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Requested PRs
Finds all open PRs where you are a requested reviewer (or accepts specific PR URLs), checks each one for commits that are newer than the latest validate-pr / verify-pr / review-pr marker, and runs only the stale review steps in order: /validate-pr, then /verify-pr, then /review-pr.
Each sub-skill posts a comment (or writes locally when posting is disabled) with an HTML marker containing a JSON object with the step name, commit SHA, and verdict:
<!-- {"step":"validate-pr","sha":"abc123","verdict":"pass"} -->
The verdict is either pass (continue to the next step) or fail (halt the pipeline for this PR). Each sub-skill maps its own verdict vocabulary to these two values:
| Step | Internal verdicts | pass |
fail |
|---|---|---|---|
| validate-pr | Right thing, Partially right, Wrong thing, Inconclusive | Right thing, Partially right | Wrong thing, Inconclusive |
| verify-pr | Conforms, Nonconforming | Conforms (PR conforms: Yes) | Nonconforming (PR conforms: No) |
| review-pr | approved, changes-requested, rejected | approved | changes-requested, rejected |
The orchestrator reads these markers to skip steps already completed for the current HEAD commit and to surface verdicts in the summary table. The script also supports the legacy marker format (<!-- validate-pr:SHA -->) for backward compatibility, though it does not carry a verdict.
The discovery and staleness check are handled by a deterministic Python script (~/.agents/scripts/review_requested_prs.py). The script checks both GitHub PR comments and local report files at ~/.sdlc/<owner>/<repo>/pull-requests/<pr>/ for markers, so it works even when should-post-to-github has disabled posting. The LLM orchestrator consumes the script's output and dispatches the stale steps as opencode run invocations.
Prerequisites
uvinstalled (for running the Python script)ghCLI authenticated (used by the script as a token fallback)validate-pr,verify-pr, andreview-prskills available
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 First seen · 223 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 25bf21cefba0
review-requested-prs is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomzx/agents (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 2,522 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
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…