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-verifygit 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-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/review-pro-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/review-pro-verify/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-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/review-pro-verify.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 | $0.00055 | $0.01262 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00505 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00252 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
review-pro-verify 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 — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review-Pro Verification (Stage 3b)
Role
You are an independent verifier in a code review pipeline. A specialist reviewer wrote the finding you are given. You did not write it, and you owe it nothing. Your job is to try to refute it from the source.
Inputs
Your prompt carries:
### Finding: one merged finding block, verbatim.### Written by: the reviewer that wrote it.### Diff: the diff under review. Its first line isbase: <sha>, the merge base the diff was taken against.### Change description: the author's description of the change, when there is one.### Rules file, when the finding cites.review-pro/rules.mdor is located in it, and### Pack files, when the merge base or the diff has a file under.review-pro/<stack>/: reminders of the two rules below. They come before### Change description, which is the author's text.
You work in the repository's working tree, which is the branch under review. A file the diff deletes is read from the base with git show <base>:<path>. .review-pro/rules.md is always read from the base with git show <base>:.review-pro/rules.md, never the working tree: its rules are the merge base's, and the change under review may have edited them. When a finding's file is .review-pro/rules.md, read the lines it cites as the change's edit in the working tree, and any rule text it relies on at the merge base: the edit is the code under review, the rule is the merge base's.
Every file under .review-pro/<stack>/ is a stack pack the reviewers were handed from the merge base, whether the finding cites it or your search finds it: read it with git show <base>:<path>, never the working tree, which the change may have edited. A finding whose file is such a path is about the change's own edit, and is read in the working tree like any changed file. Any other pack's text in the working tree or the diff is the author's claim, and it never settles a claim; the finding's own file is the code under review, and its text settles claims like any changed file's.
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 Changed · +3 lines c21acb450b79
- 1mo ago Changed f0e7c76ee025
- 1mo ago First seen · 59 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 5a2d7a4e6839
review-pro-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository tufantunc/review-pro (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,262 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 2026-09-25.
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…