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 wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers --skill suggest-reviewersgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpersWrote 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/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/suggest-reviewers)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/suggest-reviewers"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/suggest-reviewers/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/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/suggest-reviewers"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers/suggest-reviewers.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 | $0.00015 | $0.02529 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.01264 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00506 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00253 |
Grade A, and why
Suggest Reviewers Helper 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to suggest-reviewers — 12 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 — 348 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Suggest Reviewers Helper
This skill provides a Python helper script that analyzes git blame data for the /git:suggest-reviewers command. The script handles the complex task of identifying which lines were changed and who authored the original code.
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when implementing the /git:suggest-reviewers command. The helper script should be invoked during Step 3 of the command implementation (analyzing git blame for changed lines).
DO NOT implement git blame analysis manually - always use the provided analyze_blame.py script.
Prerequisites
- Python 3.6 or higher
- Git repository with commit history
- Git CLI available in PATH
Helper Script: analyze_blame.py
The analyze_blame.py script automates the complex process of:
- Parsing git diff output to identify specific line ranges that were modified
- Running git blame on only the changed line ranges (not entire files)
- Extracting and aggregating author information with statistics
- Filtering out bot accounts automatically
Usage
For uncommitted changes:
python3 ${GEMINI_EXTENSION_ROOT}/skills/suggest-reviewers/analyze_blame.py \
--mode uncommitted \
--file path/to/file1.go \
--file path/to/file2.py \
--output json
For committed changes on a feature branch:
python3 ${GEMINI_EXTENSION_ROOT}/skills/suggest-reviewers/analyze_blame.py \
--mode committed \
--base-branch main \
--file path/to/file1.go \
--file path/to/file2.py \
--output json
Parameters
-
--mode: Required. Eitheruncommittedorcommitteduncommitted: Analyzes unstaged/staged changes against HEADcommitted: Analyzes committed changes against a base branch
-
--base-branch: Required when mode iscommitted. The base branch to compare against (e.g.,main,master) -
--file: Can be specified multiple times. Each file to analyze for blame information. Only changed files should be passed. -
--output: Output format. Default isjson. Options:json: Machine-readable JSON outputtext: Human-readable text output
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 348 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 35434045380e
Suggest Reviewers Helper is a skill published in the GitHub repository wangke19/gemini-ai-helpers (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 2,529 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to suggest-reviewers, differing in 12 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
resolve-pr-comments
This skill should be used when user asks to "address PR comments", "resolve PR feedback", "handle review comments", "fix PR issues", "respond to PR review", or explicitly invokes "resolve-pr-comments".
review-pr
This skill should be used when user asks to "review a PR", "review pull request", "review this pr", "code review this PR", "check PR.
create-pr
Create pull requests following Sentry conventions. Use when opening PRs, writing PR descriptions, or preparing changes for review. Follows Sentry's code review guidelines.
gitlab-create-mr
Create GitLab merge requests from a local branch using a reviewable workflow for branch checks, GitLab host detection, diff analysis, title and description writing, and glab mr create. Use when opening a GitLab merge request, drafting or improving merge request copy, preparing a branch for review, or working across…
code-review
Request or perform a git-backed code review for a defined diff or SHA range using implementation context and requirements. Use when finishing a task, completing a major feature, preparing to merge, or when you need a fresh review before proceeding.
codex-review
Professional code review with auto CHANGELOG generation, integrated with Codex AI.