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 tonychen15/xReview --skill xreview-bugfixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tonychen15/xReviewWrote 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/tonychen15/xreview/xreview-bugfix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tonychen15/xreview/xreview-bugfix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tonychen15/xreview/xreview-bugfix/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/tonychen15/xreview/xreview-bugfix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tonychen15/xreview/xreview-bugfix.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00178 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00071 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00036 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00018 |
Grade A, and why
bugfix scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Run this command first:
xreview codex bugfix "$ARGUMENTS"
Read the script's output carefully. It tells you the session number and what to append to .review/REVIEW.md.
Then follow these steps:
- Append the session header and "Implementing" line to .review/REVIEW.md (use the exact format from the script output)
- Investigate the bug described in the objective
- If you find a bug: fix it, then run
xreview review - If no bug exists: run
xreview nobugto close the session
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 22 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A ce604cba8720
bugfix is a skill published in the GitHub repository tonychen15/xReview (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 178 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-web
Review web application code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and stack-specific anti-patterns. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review code, debug a production issue, investigate a build failure, audit security, or check a PR before merging. Triggers on code review, review my code, debug…
production-audit
Exhaustive production-readiness audit of any codebase or product. Runs diverse-angle discovery passes until two consecutive passes find nothing new, adversarially verifies every finding against the real code, and reports one flat severity-tagged list with file:line evidence. No summary, no hedging.
refactor
Guides a refactor, cleanup, or restructure with the right decomposition. Use when the user asks to refactor, simplify, extract, or modernize code.
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
ast-grep
Searches and rewrites code by AST shape across 25 languages. Use when the target is a syntax pattern (every call/class/import shaped like X, a codemod, a YAML rule) rather than literal text; for plain strings, comments, or filenames, use rg.