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 agentmods add skills/udecode/plate-template/autoreviewnpx skills add udecode/plate-template --skill autoreviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/udecode/plate-templateWhat 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 | $0.00031 | $0.06606 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.03303 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.01321 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00661 |
Grade A, and why
autoreview 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 3d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to autoreview — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 359 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Auto Review
Run the bundled structured review helper as a closeout check. This is code review, not Guardian auto_review approval routing.
Codex review is the default when no engine is set. It uses gpt-5.5 by default, usually delivers the best review results, and should remain the normal final closeout engine. Claude review is optional and uses claude-fable-5 by default.
For user-visible behavior, pair autoreview with behavior-validator. Autoreview is source-aware and judges the change bundle; behavior validation is source-blind and judges the running product or tool against a behavior contract. A clean autoreview is not proof that a UI, CLI, API, or generated artifact works from the user's perspective.
Use when:
- user asks for Codex review / Claude review / Pi review / Droid review / Cursor review / OpenCode review / autoreview / second-model review
- after non-trivial code edits, before final/commit/ship
- reviewing a local branch or PR branch after fixes
Contract
- Treat review output as advisory. Never blindly apply it.
- Verify every finding by reading the real code path and adjacent files.
- Read dependency docs/source/types when the finding depends on external behavior.
- Reject unrealistic edge cases, speculative risks, broad rewrites, and fixes that over-complicate the codebase.
- Prefer small fixes at the right ownership boundary; no refactor unless it clearly improves the bug class.
- When an accepted finding shows a bug class or repeated pattern, inspect the current PR scope for sibling instances before fixing.
- Fix the scoped bug class at once when practical; stop at touched surfaces, owner boundaries, and clear follow-up territory.
- Keep going until structured review returns no accepted/actionable findings only while the work remains inside the original task scope.
- If a review-triggered fix changes code, rerun focused tests and rerun the structured review helper.
- For security-audit suppression changes, verify accepted findings remain auditable: suppressed findings stay in structured output, active output keeps an unsuppressible suppression notice, and aggregate findings cannot hide unrelated active risk.
- Never switch or override the requested review engine/model. If the review hits model capacity, retry the same command a few times with the same engine/model.
- Be patient with large bundles. Structured review can take up to 30 minutes while the model call is active, especially with Codex tools or web search.
- Treat heartbeat lines like
review still running: ... elapsed=... pid=...as healthy progress, not a hang. Let the helper continue while heartbeats are advancing. Pass--stream-engine-outputwhen live engine text is useful; Codex, Claude, and Cursor filter tool/file chatter, other engines pass raw output through. - Do not kill a review just because it has been quiet for 2-5 minutes, or because it is still running under the 30-minute window. Inspect the process only after missing multiple expected heartbeats, after 30 minutes, or after an obviously failed subprocess; prefer letting the same helper command finish.
- Tools are useful in review mode. The helper allows read-only inspection tools and web search by default so reviewers can check dependency contracts, upstream docs, and current behavior.
- Security perspective is always included, but it should not cripple legitimate functionality. Report security findings only when the change creates a concrete, actionable risk or removes an important safety check.
- For regression provenance, keep roles separate: blamed code author, blamed PR author, PR merger/committer, current PR author, and PR/date. If no blamed PR is traceable, use the blamed commit as the provenance: commit SHA, date, and author username. Do not guess a merger or frame missing PR metadata as a separate finding.
- If the blamed PR was merged by
clawsweeper[bot]or another automation, identify the human trigger when practical. Check timeline/comments first; if rate-limited, use gitcrawl/cache or public PR HTML. Look for maintainer commands such as@clawsweeper automerge,/landpr, or labels/status comments that armed automerge. Reportautomerge triggered by @login; if not found, say trigger unknown. - Do not invoke built-in
codex review, nested reviewers, or reviewer panels from inside the review. The helper builds one bundle, calls one selected engine, validates one structured result, and stops. - Stop as soon as the helper exits 0 with no accepted/actionable findings. Do not run an extra review just to get a nicer "clean" line, a second opinion, or clearer closeout wording.
- Treat the helper's successful exit plus absence of actionable findings as the clean review result, even if the underlying Codex CLI output is terse.
- Multi-reviewer panels are opt-in only. Use them when explicitly requested or when risk justifies the extra spend; the main agent still verifies every accepted finding before fixing.
- If rejecting a finding as intentional/not worth fixing, add a brief inline code comment only when it explains a real invariant or ownership decision that future reviewers should know.
- If
gh/Gitcrawl reportsdatabase disk image is malformed, rungitcrawl doctor --jsononce to let the portable cache repair before retrying review; do not bypass the shim unless repair fails and freshness requires live GitHub. - If Gitcrawl reports a portable manifest mismatch, source/runtime DB health error, or stale portable-store checkout, run
gitcrawl doctor --jsonand inspectsource_db_health,runtime_db_health, andportable_store_statusbefore falling back to live GitHub. - Do not push just to review. Push only when the user requested push/ship/PR update.
What ships with it
6 files 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.
- 3d ago First seen · 359 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 45631f438a4c
autoreview is a skill published in the GitHub repository udecode/plate-template (59 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 6,606 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to autoreview, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autogoal
Create, verify, repair, and close durable Codex goals with measurable outcomes, evidence gates, plan templates, blocker handling, completion audits, and goal-backed workflow repair.
components
React component architecture for creating composable, accessible components with data attributes. Use when creating/updating composable components, not for higher-level feature/page components.
react
React patterns with destructured props, compiler optimization, Effects, and Tailwind v4 syntax. ALWAYS use when using React.
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude, Pi, Droid, Copilot, Cursor, or OpenCode.
resolve-pr-feedback
Resolve GitHub PR review feedback with source-backed triage, fixes, autogoal plan state, mandatory autoreview closeout, replies, and thread resolution.
tdd
Test-driven development with red-green-refactor loop. Use when user wants to build features or fix bugs using TDD, mentions "red-green-refactor", wants integration tests, or asks for test-first development.