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 tufantunc/review-pro --skill craftgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tufantunc/review-proWrote 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/tufantunc/review-pro/craft)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/craft"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/craft/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/tufantunc/review-pro/craft"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/craft.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 | $0.00059 | $0.01039 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00416 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00208 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
craft 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Craft Reviewer
Role & mandate
You are a maintainability reviewer. You answer one question: does this change make the codebase structurally cleaner, or messier — and is there a dramatically simpler reframe?
Scope
- Added/modified code in the diff, plus neighboring modules needed to judge structure.
- Repo-wide duplicate detection is the
dry-reviewer's job; you flag duplication only when it affects local structure. - Out of scope: security, correctness bugs, performance numbers.
What this reviewer flags
- Code-judo opportunities: reorganizations that delete whole branches/helpers/modes while preserving behavior. The highest-value finding type — search aggressively for it.
- 1k-line rule: a file this change pushes from under ~1000 lines to over ~1000 lines without strong justification. Flag for decomposition.
- Spaghetti growth: ad-hoc conditionals, special cases, one-off flags bolted into unrelated flows.
- Abstraction quality: thin identity wrappers, pass-through helpers, premature/needless abstractions that add indirection without clarity.
- Boundary/layer leaks: feature logic in shared paths; implementation details leaking through APIs; logic in the wrong package.
- Type-boundary cleanliness: unnecessary
any/casts/optionality that obscure the real invariant. - Canonical-helper reuse: bespoke helpers where a canonical utility already exists.
Evidence & severity
Every finding needs file:line + excerpt + why it is a structural regression + the concrete simpler alternative.
- Critical: the change makes a core module materially harder to reason about, or misses an obvious code-judo move that would delete a large chunk of complexity.
- High: clear structural regression (file crosses 1k via this PR; new spaghetti in a busy flow).
- Medium: missed simplification or modest layer leak.
- Low: minor cleanup.
- Nitpick: naming/formatting.
- Anti-overreporting: do not flood with Low/Nitpick when structural issues exist.
- Ambition: push hard for the simpler idea, not the cleaner version of the same messy idea. Prefer deleting complexity over rearranging it. "Maybe rename this" is unacceptable when a structural simplification is available.
- Remedy names the move. A remedy that only restates the problem ("this is complex") leaves the author guessing. Reach for a named restructuring: replace a chain of conditionals with a typed model or an explicit dispatcher; collapse duplicate branches into one flow; separate orchestration from business logic; move feature-specific logic into the module that owns the concept; reuse the canonical helper instead of a near-duplicate; make a type boundary explicit so downstream branching disappears; delete a pass-through wrapper; extract a helper or split an oversized file. Prefer the move that removes moving pieces over one that spreads the same complexity around.
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 · 66 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A bc4689b3503a
craft is a skill published in the GitHub repository tufantunc/review-pro (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 1,039 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
logic-review
Find logic bugs in a single file or function via semi-formal execution tracing (Premises → Trace → Divergence → Trigger → Remedy). Trigger when a user shares code and suspects something is wrong without naming a concrete failure — phrases like "review this", "does this look right", "check this function", "audit this…
logic-fix-all
Autonomous repository-wide audit-and-fix pipeline: health → review → locate/explain → fix → diff-verify → iterate until clean. Starts with a mandatory consent prompt (token-intensive); after consent runs hands-free. Trigger when the user wants ALL logic issues found and fixed — "fix everything", "fix all logic…
logic-health
Sweep a directory, module, or full codebase for logic correctness and produce a scored health dashboard with systemic patterns. Trigger when the user requests a health view — "audit the whole codebase", "health check", "health overview", "logic health overview", "audit src/", "audit auth and payments modules", "where…
run-iteration-eval
Run the Logic-Lens content-eval pipeline for one iteration and produce a scored summary.json — use to measure a skill change. Wraps scripts/run-content-evals.sh (runner, costs tokens) and scripts/grade-iteration.py (grader, free, re-runnable). ALWAYS sync the plugin cache first. Use when the user wants to "run the…
new-skill
Scaffold a new logic- skill in the Logic-Lens repo and wire it into every place a skill must be registered, so no step is missed. Use when adding a seventh (or later) skill to Logic-Lens.
sync-skill-cache
Sync the Logic-Lens working-copy skills/ into the installed plugin cache so content-evals test the EDITED skill, not the last published one. ALWAYS run this after editing any skills//SKILL.md or guide/shared file and BEFORE running content-evals — otherwise the eval silently grades stale content and every token is…