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-featuregit 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-feature)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tonychen15/xreview/xreview-feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tonychen15/xreview/xreview-feature/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-feature"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tonychen15/xreview/xreview-feature.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 | $0.00038 | $0.00153 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00077 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00031 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00015 |
Grade A, and why
feature scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 11d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Run this command first:
xreview codex feature "$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)
- Implement the feature described in the objective
- When done, run
xreview reviewto trigger the reviewer
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 21 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 65686f1be8ef
feature is a skill published in the GitHub repository tonychen15/xReview (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 153 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-implementing
Process and implement code review feedback systematically. Use when user provides reviewer comments, PR feedback, code review notes, or asks to implement suggestions from reviews.
code-auditor
Performs comprehensive codebase analysis covering architecture, code quality, security, performance, testing, and maintainability. Use when user wants to audit code quality, identify technical debt, find security issues, assess test coverage, or get a codebase health check.
react-senior-code-review
Senior-level review of a React feature, by theSeniorDev — structure & boundaries, state & data flow, performance & rendering, types/forms/testability/a11y, and styling architecture & motion. Recommends design patterns by name when one fits. Produces prioritized findings (Critical → Nit) with file:line, why, and a…
shipkit-review-shipping
Review changes across 12 quality dimensions and report findings. Use after a chunk of work or before commit.
shipkit-prompt-audit
Audit LLM prompt pipeline architecture — decomposition, parallelization, chain integrity, schema validation, fallback paths. Finds structural issues no linter catches.
shipkit-review-planning
Internal reviewer — assesses planning artifact alignment. Checks definitions agree, specs cover roadmap, no gaps. A per-unit reviewer invoked by a caller (the engine in steered mode or a direction/planning caller), not for direct use.