Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to warpdotdev/common-skills. 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/warpdotdev/common-skills/main/.agents/skills/review-pr/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/warpdotdev/common-skillsWrote 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/warpdotdev/common-skills/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/warpdotdev/common-skills/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/warpdotdev/common-skills/review-pr/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/warpdotdev/common-skills/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/warpdotdev/common-skills/review-pr.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk warn
- 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 Agent Snooping · line 33 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00053 | $0.02312 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00925 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00462 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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 1mo 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 — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review PR Skill
Review the current pull request and write the output to review.json.
Context
- The working directory is the PR branch checkout.
- The workflow usually provides an annotated diff in
pr_diff.txt. - The workflow usually provides the PR description in
pr_description.txt. - If
spec_context.mdexists, it contains spec context for implementation-vs-spec validation. - When the prompt references
.agents/skills/review-pr/scripts/resolve_spec_context.py, use that script to materializespec_context.mdon demand instead of expecting spec content to be embedded in the prompt. - Focus on files and lines changed by this PR.
- Do not post comments or reviews to GitHub directly.
Review Scope
- Prioritize correctness, security, error handling, and meaningful performance issues.
- Treat comment quality and test quality as first-class review priorities alongside those — not as optional nits to mention only if time allows; check both against the repository's own conventions before finalizing your verdict.
- If the consuming repository provides a local
security-review-prcompanion skill or the prompt requests a security pass, apply it as supplemental guidance on code PRs and fold any security findings into the samereview.jsonrather than emitting a separate output. - When
spec_context.mdexists, use the repository's localcheck-impl-against-specskill if available and treat material spec drift as a review concern. - Include style or nit comments only when you can provide a concrete suggestion block.
- If a concern involves untouched code, mention it in top-level
bodyinstead of an inline comment. - Do not suggest adding test cases that only vary constructor inputs or struct fields when the existing test already covers the meaningful behavior. Only suggest new tests when they exercise a distinct code path or edge case.
- When a PR is clearly a V0 or initial implementation, frame robustness suggestions (timeouts, retries, lifecycle management) as optional future work rather than blocking concerns, unless they risk correctness, security, or data loss.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 149 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 154db145c76a
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository warpdotdev/common-skills (636 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 2,312 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…