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 utk2103/Prompt-Studio --skill lean-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/utk2103/Prompt-StudioWrote 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/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-review/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/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/utk2103/prompt-studio/lean-review.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 | $0.00096 | $0.00579 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00290 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00116 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00058 |
Grade A, and why
lean-review 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 9d 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
91% identical to ponytail-review — 14 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.
What it actually says
Review diffs for unnecessary complexity. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. The diff's best outcome is getting shorter.
Format
L<line>: <tag> <what>. <replacement>., or <file>:L<line>: ... for
multi-file diffs.
Tags:
delete:dead code, unused flexibility, speculative feature. Replacement: nothing.stdlib:hand-rolled thing the standard library ships. Name the function.native:dependency or code doing what the platform already does. Name the feature.yagni:abstraction with one implementation, config nobody sets, layer with one caller.shrink:same logic, fewer lines. Show the shorter form.
Examples
❌ "This EmailValidator class might be more complex than necessary, have you considered whether all these validation rules are needed at this stage?"
✅ L12-38: stdlib: 27-line validator class. "@" in email, 1 line, real validation is the confirmation mail.
✅ L4: native: moment.js imported for one format call. Intl.DateTimeFormat, 0 deps.
✅ repo.py:L88: yagni: AbstractRepository with one implementation. Inline it until a second one exists.
✅ L52-71: delete: retry wrapper around an idempotent local call. Nothing replaces it.
✅ L30-44: shrink: manual loop builds dict. dict(zip(keys, values)), 1 line.
Scoring
End with the only metric that matters: net: -<N> lines possible.
If there is nothing to cut, say Lean already. Ship. and stop.
Boundaries
Scope: over-engineering and complexity only. Correctness bugs, security holes,
and performance are explicitly out of scope. Route them to a normal review
pass, not this one. A single smoke test or assert-based
self-check is the Lean minimum, not bloat, never flag it for deletion.
Does not apply the fixes, only lists them.
"stop lean-review" or "normal mode": revert to verbose review style.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 59 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A 0cdae53b1143
lean-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository utk2103/Prompt-Studio (7 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 579 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to ponytail-review, differing in 14 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
manufacture-review-independence
Use when reviewing your own work, or when the author-equals-reviewer guard is deliberately overridden — real independence is gone, so manufacture it: parallel independently-scoped sub-reviews plus an adversarial re-read of source for every high-severity claim, and treat cross-reviewer disagreement as a pointer to the…
scan-generated-files-for-artifacts
Use when reviewing or signing off on a file an agent produced with a write tool — a doc, README, config, data file, or any non-code output. Passing tests prove nothing about stray harness framing: a leaked closing tag, an XML/markdown-fence fragment, or content past the intended EOF compiles and tests clean, then…
diff-each-side-against-merge-base
Use when resolving a merge or rebase conflict, or reviewing a merge commit — conflict markers show where git gave up, not the full semantic delta, and 3-way auto-merge silently drops fields outside the markers. Compare ours/theirs/base by symbol and field inventory before trusting the result. Triggers on "merge…
findings-list-is-not-a-todo-list
Use when re-engaged to "act on" or "fix the rest of" a review, audit, or recommendation list — the list is not a to-do list. Re-read each item's own disposition first and bucket them; some are explicitly marked no-fix, some need a human decision, some are scale-gated. Triggers on "fix the findings", "address the…
discount-review
Inspect the discount policy fixture with a repeatable review checklist and helper script.
code-review
Reviews code for bugs, security issues, and best practices.