Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to victoriacity/openakari. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/victoriacity/openakari/main/.claude/skills/review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/victoriacity/openakariWrote 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/victoriacity/openakari/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/victoriacity/openakari/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/victoriacity/openakari/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00024 | $0.01927 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00963 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00385 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00193 |
Grade A, and why
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 8d 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 — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/review [metrics | findings]
Validate experiment outputs in two modes. Metrics mode checks whether metric computations are meaningful given the experimental setup (run before writing findings). Findings mode checks whether written conclusions are valid (run after writing findings). If no mode is specified, run both in sequence: metrics first, then findings.
When to use this vs alternatives
- Use
/review metricswhen you have metric definitions or computed values and want to check whether they are meaningful given the experimental setup. - Use
/review findingswhen findings have been written and you want to validate each claim. - Use
/review(no mode) to run the full pipeline: metrics validation → findings validation. - Use
/critiquefor a broad adversarial review across 9 failure dimensions. Critique is wider but shallower; /review goes deeper on metric validity and finding correctness. - Use
/diagnosewhen you want to understand what results mean — error patterns, root causes, hypotheses. Diagnose interprets results; /review checks whether they are interpretable and correctly stated.
Metrics mode
1. Extract the constraint set
Identify the fixed parameters of the experiment:
- Response schema: What values can the model output? (e.g.,
Literal["A", "B"], 1-5 scale, free text) - n_runs: How many repeated calls per evaluation?
- Temperature: Is there randomness across runs?
- Sample size: How many items/pairs/tasks?
- Ground truth structure: Does ground truth include ties, ordinal rankings, continuous scores?
- Aggregation method: How are repeated runs combined? (majority vote, mean, threshold)
2. For each metric, apply these tests
Degeneracy test
Given the constraints, can this metric take more than one value? If the setup forces the metric to a constant regardless of model behavior, it is degenerate.
Examples: accuracy with n_runs=1 → always (non-tie GTs / total); confidence range with binary schema → always 0% or 100%; inter-run agreement with temperature=0 → always ~100%.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 167 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 347e966a735a
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository victoriacity/openakari (47 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,927 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
instrument-data-to-allotrope
Convert laboratory instrument output files (PDF, CSV, Excel, TXT) to Allotrope Simple Model (ASM) JSON format or flattened 2D CSV. Use this skill when scientists need to standardize instrument data for LIMS systems, data lakes, or downstream analysis. Supports auto-detection of instrument types. Outputs include full…
exploratory-data-analysis
Perform bounded, local exploratory analysis of explicitly supported scientific files. Use for redacted CSV/TSV/JSON profiles; optional NumPy, HDF5, FASTA/FASTQ, and basic image metadata inspection; missingness/leakage audits; outlier and transformation sensitivity; and rigorous EDA report scaffolds. Other domain…
matlab
Build, review, migrate, and safely plan MATLAB or GNU Octave numerical workflows, including arrays, tabular/time data, tests, projects, graphics, MAT files, and explicit Python interoperability.
phylogenetics
Build and analyze phylogenetic trees using MAFFT (multiple alignment), IQ-TREE 2 (maximum likelihood), and FastTree (fast NJ/ML). Visualize with ETE3 or FigTree. For evolutionary analysis, microbial genomics, viral phylodynamics, protein family analysis, and molecular clock studies.
research-engineer
An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.
mapping-to-snomed
Maps clinical concept spans extracted by OpenMed to SNOMED CT concepts through a USER-SUPPLIED terminology server (the user's own Ontoserver, Snowstorm, or UMLS/UTS), never a bundled vocabulary. Use when the user wants to code findings, disorders, procedures, body structures, or substances to SNOMED CT, run an ECL…