Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/winstonkoh87/Athena-Publicnpx agentmods add skills/winstonkoh87/athena-public/red-team-reviewWrote 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/winstonkoh87/athena-public/red-team-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/winstonkoh87/athena-public/red-team-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/winstonkoh87/athena-public/red-team-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/winstonkoh87/athena-public/red-team-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/winstonkoh87/athena-public/red-team-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00103 | $0.02001 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00800 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00400 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00200 |
Grade A, and why
red-team-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 29d 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 — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Red-Team Review (v4.3 — Strategic Matrix)
Canonical Protocol: MTA-004-red-team-v4-3.md Absorbs:
bias-detector(v4.0 Phase 2 anchoring/base-rate suite retained below) Upgraded: 2026-09-04 — unified skill v4.0 + protocol v4.3 into single version Version History: v4.0 (5-phase) → v4.1 → v4.2 → v4.3 (Strategic Matrix, 7-phase)
This skill wraps MTA-004 (the canonical red-team protocol) and adds trigger routing + the bias detection suite from v4.0. For the full framework, load MTA-004 directly.
Mode Routing (pick before Phase 0)
| Target | Mode |
|---|---|
| An argument, plan, strategy, price or claim to believe | Strategic Matrix: the 7 phases below |
| A built artefact someone will receive or mark (docx/PDF, slides, notebook, code output, handoff folder) | Deliverable Audit: load deliverable-audit.md. Skip SWOT/MCDA. Severity = marks or users at risk. |
Mixed targets (an essay's argument and its compiled file) get both: Strategic Matrix on the draft, Deliverable Audit on the compiled file. The Deliverable Audit core rule: cut the auditor off from the work's history (answer key, changelog, earlier audits, "verified" claims), never from the spec, and make it run things, not just read.
Triggers
"review this", "red team", "what am I missing", "is this ready to ship", "QA", "critique", "is this a fair price", "too good to be true", "scam", "is this legit", "grill me"
The 7-Phase Framework (MTA-004 v4.3)
Phase 0: Priors & Premises (Mandatory)
Assume the "Alien Observer" stance. Declare:
- Thesis: core argument/frame of the artifact
- Falsification: what specific metric/event proves this wrong
- Excluded Reality: what valid perspective is strictly ignored
- Reality Check: the unspoken cultural narrative or meta-game
Do not proceed until these 4 are answered.
Phase 1: The Objective Rubric
Score the artifact against this matrix. Start at 50%.
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.
- 29d ago Changed · +11 lines · +38 tokens per session d37a89f08b1b
- 1mo ago Changed · +57 lines · +39 tokens per session 3e22af4287b5
- 1mo ago First seen · 79 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 62a6eea56ca4
red-team-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository winstonkoh87/Athena-Public (619 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 103 tokens to every session and 2,001 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
code-review
Perform a structured code review of changes, checking for correctness, style, tests, and potential issues.
credit-note-fixer
Fix the tiny credit-note formatting bug and rerun the exact targeted test command.
cli-command
Design, implement, or review Composio CLI commands under ts/packages/cli using Effect, effect/cli, services, output conventions, configuration and environment variables, and local vendor references. Use for CLI command UX, command wiring, service changes, or CLI source edits. Do not use for CLI E2E-only work; use…
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
engineer-bot-evidence
A local checker for confirming that delivery checks and supporting evidence belong to the current software version. It does not contact Git, continuous-integration systems, or the internet.
Smart Code Review
Review a PR diff: triage its severity, then produce a depth-appropriate review with structured findings, fix suggestions, and a merge decision. Use for code review, review PR, and severity triage requests.