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 wazimmerman/zimster --skill risk-adaptive-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wazimmerman/zimsterWrote 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/wazimmerman/zimster/risk-adaptive-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wazimmerman/zimster/risk-adaptive-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wazimmerman/zimster/risk-adaptive-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/wazimmerman/zimster/risk-adaptive-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wazimmerman/zimster/risk-adaptive-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 | $0.00027 | $0.01739 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00870 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00348 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00174 |
Grade A, and why
risk-adaptive-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 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 — 196 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Risk-Adaptive Review
Review follows risk and architectural seams, not plan-heading count.
Risk dimensions
| Dimension | Low | Medium | High |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blast radius | local unit | subsystem | public/cross-system |
| Concurrency | none | ordinary async | races, cancellation, ownership |
| Security/data | none | recoverable | auth, secrets, destructive change |
| Boundary | internal | stable dependency | hardware, OS, unstable service |
| Novelty | existing pattern | adaptation | new architecture |
| Observability | deterministic | fixture needed | difficult/live-only |
Profile mapping
| Profile | Deterministic rule | Review |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | All dimensions Low, one coherent slice, no public contract or hard trigger | Owner verification only |
| Standard | One or more Medium dimensions, subsystem/multi-component work, and no High/hard trigger | Clean-context independent_review at the concentrated seam or integration point |
| High risk | Any High dimension or hard trigger | Early load-bearing review plus final clean-context integration independent_review |
Hard triggers include auth/trust, destructive migration, concurrency ownership, public compatibility, native OS/hardware, unstable service, or live-only proof. Report the selected profile and rationale.
Owner-inline inspection is self_review; it cannot satisfy Standard or
High-risk independent_review. Approval applies only to the exact candidate
base/head, review-package ID, stable semantic-contract digest, and required
lens set. The digest covers binding text, intended claims, implementation
locations, and evidence scope, but excludes mutable evidence references,
statuses, observations, and verification results. Final evidence may advance
without invalidating approval when that contract and the candidate are
unchanged.
If review is unavailable, use OWNER_VERIFIED_REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE, never
approval. CANDIDATE_COMPLETE requires the profile-appropriate semantic
approval and complete matrix evidence. High-risk work requires all
load-bearing obligations and final integration approval.
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 · 196 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A b89bd228a03d
risk-adaptive-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository wazimmerman/zimster (2 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,739 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
architecture-review
Method for assessing a codebase's structure — duplication, single-responsibility violations, layering problems, and coupling — and recommending minimal, incremental improvements. Use when asked to review architecture, assess structure or technical debt, evaluate module boundaries, or plan a refactor. Reviews the…
security-audit
Security review and hardening workflow — root-cause analysis of vulnerabilities, authentication and authorization checks, least privilege, input handling, secret hygiene, and security regression tests. Use when reviewing code for security, fixing a vulnerability, hardening a feature, or handling auth, permissions…
code-quality-review
Checklist and method for reviewing code quality — readability, maintainability, SOLID, DRY, performance, and backward compatibility. Use when asked to review code, a diff, a branch, or a merge request for quality, or before finalizing significant changes. For GitHub PR review use the built-in /review; for…
safe-change
Trace, implement, test, and independently review one bounded software change. Use for ordinary feature, bug-fix, or refactor work after the repository is bootstrapped; do not use for broad repository cleanup, production operations, or undefined rewrites.
behavior-implement
Implement behavior through a red-green-refactor cycle when focused automated tests are proportionate. Use for product behavior changes and for engineering tooling and infrastructure only when native checks are insufficient and concrete complexity or failure risk warrants dedicated tests.
ai-slop-cleaner
Clean AI-generated code slop with a regression-safe, deletion-first workflow and optional reviewer-only mode.