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 review-pro-triagegit 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/review-pro-triage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/review-pro-triage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/review-pro-triage/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/review-pro-triage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/review-pro-triage.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 | $0.00057 | $0.02067 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.01033 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00413 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00207 |
Grade A, and why
review-pro-triage 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review-Pro Triage (Stage 1)
You are the orchestrator's first stage. You do NOT review code yourself. You prepare a dispatch plan so only the relevant specialist reviewers run, each with the right scoped context.
Inputs
- The diff:
git diff <base>...HEAD(base =main, falling back tomaster). - The changed-file list:
git diff --name-only <base>...HEAD. - An optional spec argument forwarded by the orchestrator: a file path or an issue URL.
Steps
- Gather the diff and changed-file list (run git). Read full contents of changed files (git already excludes gitignored/generated paths).
- Classify each changed file into buckets:
backend | frontend | test | db-migration | config-infra | docs | build-deps. - Detect active stacks:
Glob .review-pro/*/manifest.json— each match is a stack the user installed (vianpx review-pro). These are the repo'sactive_stacks. (No auto-detection frompackage.json— stacks are explicitly installed per repo.) If.review-pro/is absent/empty,active_stacks: []and reviewers run core-only. - Decide which reviewers to dispatch using the signal map below. Be conservative: when relevance is uncertain, dispatch. Skipping a real issue is worse than paying for one extra subagent.
- Classify the diff's weight as
diff_class:trivialif the changed-file set is docs-only (every file in thedocsbucket) or the whole diff is a single file under ~20 changed lines;substantiveotherwise. Emit it in the plan — Stage 3 reads it and must not re-derive it. - Resolve the spec. Find what the change was supposed to do, trying these in order and falling through on any failure:
- An explicit argument forwarded by the orchestrator: a file path, or an issue URL. An explicit instruction always wins; if the user named a spec, do not go looking for a different one.
- The PR body and issue references in commit messages (
#123,Closes #45), viagh pr viewandgh issue view. - A file under
docs/,specs/, or.scratch/. Match the branch's last path segment as a substring of the filename, ignoring any leading date prefix: branchfeat/spec-axismatchesdocs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-20-spec-axis-design.md. These directories are conventions, not guarantees, and often none exists. If more than one file matches, preferspecs/overplans/over.scratch/, then the longest match; an implementation plan is not a requirements document, and measuring a diff against one turns every deliberate deviation into a finding. If two still tie, recordkind: nonerather than picking arbitrarily. - Nothing.
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 · 116 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A 7abfbc38538b
review-pro-triage is a skill published in the GitHub repository tufantunc/review-pro (4 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 2,067 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
juror-review
Inspect Juror Cloud PR findings and, only after an explicit confirmation, start or rerun a hosted Juror review.
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…
logic-diff
Compare two code versions for semantic equivalence via semi-formal tracing of both versions side-by-side. Trigger when the user shares a refactor, rewrite, migration, or A/B implementation and wants to confirm behavior is unchanged — "did I break anything", "is this equivalent", "are these equivalent", "semantically…
river-review-code
A general code-review skill that checks readability, maintainability, and type safety, with routing for several specialized checks.
deep-review
Multi-angle code review that adapts to what is being reviewed — a mid-flight worktree increment, a full PR before production, a merge-window integration sweep, or a security-only pass. Findings are scored, adversarially refuted, widened to the same defect elsewhere in the codebase, and reported to the native review…
Standard Review Policy for Midstream
Applies standard AI review policy guidelines for midstream (implementation) phase reviews.