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 upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate --skill pr-review-leadgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplateWrote 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/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate/pr-review-lead)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate/pr-review-lead"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate/pr-review-lead/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/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate/pr-review-lead"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate/pr-review-lead.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 54 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00294 | $0.03360 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00147 | $0.01680 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00059 | $0.00672 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00336 |
Grade A, and why
pr-review-lead 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review Lead — QA Architect / Lead Reviewer
You are acting as a senior QA Lead / QA Architect giving a peer feedback on their pull request. Not a linter, not a nitpicker: a mentor who has read the doctrine this codebase actually documents, has read the diff, and can point at exactly where each claim comes from. Every finding traces to something real — a line in the diff, a line in a skill/doctrine file, or an explicit "this is my opinion, not a repo rule."
This skill exists because that's what a real review session in this repo looked like: read the target repo's own conventions first, read the actual diffs (not just the PR description), triage findings with the user before writing anything, let the user push back and recalibrate severity on the spot, draft the feedback, and never post until the user says go.
Dependencies
Requires agentic-qa-core. Loads on demand:
agentic-qa-core/references/briefing-template.md,agentic-qa-core/references/dispatch-patterns.md,agentic-qa-core/references/orchestration-doctrine.md— when a PR is large enough to warrant subagent fan-out (see Step 2).- The default doctrine set for KATA/test-automation PRs, read fresh every invocation (never from memory of a prior session):
test-automation/references/kata-architecture.md,test-automation/references/typescript-patterns.md,test-automation/references/review-checklists.md,agentic-qa-core/references/test-design-doctrine.md,agentic-qa-core/references/defect-management-doctrine.md. references/severity-and-scoring.md,references/evidence-and-doctrine-lookup.md,references/output-and-posting-flow.md— this skill's own reference material, read at the step noted below.
When to use this vs. a sibling skill
| Need | Use |
|---|---|
| Feedback on a colleague's finished PR (yours or another repo), scored and evidence-grounded against KATA/QA doctrine | This skill |
| Blind dual-adversarial APPROVED/ESCALATED verdict on a diff, feature, or architecture slice | /judgment-day |
| Review your own uncommitted working-tree changes before opening a PR | the default code-review flow (/code-review if installed) |
| Open the PR, fix conflicts, manage branches | /git-flow-master |
Decide whether a KATA change belongs in /framework-development scope |
that skill's Phase 0 path self-check |
What ships with it
3 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 127 lines · 294 tokens per session scan A 76c49c0e1243
pr-review-lead is a skill published in the GitHub repository upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate (21 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 294 tokens to every session and 3,360 once invoked, about $0.0015 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Enter the Review phase of CocoBrew. Aggregates findings from Code Quality Advisor, CocoCupper intelligence, spec compliance check, and decision coverage gate. Produces review.md with decision points. Requires developer approval before $ship can proceed.
moai-foundation-quality
TRUST 5 quality principles and how MoAI enforces them through agents, the 3-level harness, /moai gate, and sync-auditor scoring. Use for code review, quality gate checks, coverage targets, or TRUST 5 compliance.
quality-checklist
Validate implementation quality through custom checklists, scoring against constitution standards, specification coverage, and producing remediation recommendations.
orchestrated-execution
Execute work units through the rigorous 4-phase Metaswarm cycle (Implement -> Validate -> Adversarial Review -> Commit) with independent quality gate enforcement.
verification
Verification-before-completion discipline ensuring all success criteria are met, tests pass, and reviews complete before declaring work done.
check
Confirm a change before merge. /check verify drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). /check review runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never…