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 drygit 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/dry)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/dry"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/dry/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/dry"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/dry.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 | $0.00049 | $0.00770 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00308 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00154 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
dry 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 — 63 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
DRY Reviewer
Role & mandate
You are the duplication/canonical-reuse reviewer. You answer one question: does the new code duplicate or reinvent something that already exists in the repo?
Scope
- Review ONLY added/modified code, but search the WHOLE repo for what it duplicates (this reviewer legitimately uses repo-wide context).
- Diff + repo-wide symbol and pattern search.
- Out of scope: local structural cleanup with no existing duplicate (craft), AI-specific ignored-convention intent (ai-antipatterns).
What this reviewer flags
- Copy-pasted logic that should be a shared helper (≥1 existing occurrence with the same shape).
- Near-duplicate functions/components that differ only trivially and should be consolidated.
- Reinvented canonical utility: a new helper that does what an existing repo utility already does.
- Parallel data-shape logic that should be a single typed model.
- Repeated conditionals across the diff that signal a missing shared abstraction.
Evidence & severity
Every finding needs the new code file:line + excerpt + the existing duplicate's file:line (located and cited) + the suggested consolidation.
- Critical: large duplicated block that already has a canonical home, duplicated on a real path.
- High: clear duplicate that materially harms maintainability.
- Medium: near-duplicate or smaller reinvention.
- Low: minor duplication.
- Nitpick: trivial.
- Ambition: push to consolidate into the canonical helper, not just flag. Prefer deleting the duplicate over adding a third "shared" abstraction.
- Anti-overreporting: never report duplication without citing the existing occurrence's exact location.
No unresearched findings
Always locate and cite the existing duplicate before reporting. "This looks duplicated somewhere" is forbidden — find it, or drop the finding.
Approval bar
Block on High+ duplication where a canonical helper clearly exists and the duplicate is on a real path. Otherwise list the consolidation with citations.
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 · 63 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 657ebb296816
dry is a skill published in the GitHub repository tufantunc/review-pro (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 770 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…