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 | $0.00065 | $0.01681 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00840 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00336 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00168 |
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 7d 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 — 136 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.
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%.
| Component | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Logic & Rigor | 30% | Deductively sound. Checks survivorship bias & sample size. No orphan stats. |
| Bias Mitigation | 20% | Steelmans opposition. Checks for sycophancy. |
| Completeness | 20% | Addresses "The Victim." Covers edge cases and cultural nuance. |
| Strategic Alignment | 15% | Aligns with Law #1. Respects physics. High utility. |
| Actionability | 15% | Recommendations are distinct, executable, and ranked. |
Confidence Cap: Low confidence → max score capped at 60/100.
Phase 1.5: The "Grill Me" Test (Echo Chamber Breaker)
If invoked via /grill or explicitly asked to "grill me":
- Reverse Roles: Act as the senior, uncompromising reviewer.
- Challenge Premises: Explicitly challenge at least one core premise.
- Demand Proof: Make the user defend their decisions.
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.
- 7d ago Changed · +57 lines · +39 tokens per session 3e22af4287b5
- 13d 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 (587 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 1,681 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
code-qualities-assessment
Assess code maintainability through 5 foundational qualities (cohesion, coupling, encapsulation, testability, non-redundancy) with quantifiable scoring rubrics. Works at method/class/module levels across multiple languages. Produces markdown reports with remediation guidance. Use when you ask to "assess…
pr-quality-qa
Judge a local diff on test coverage, error handling, and whether the tests would fail if the code regressed, and return a PASS/WARN/CRITICALFAIL verdict. Use when you say qa review my changes, run the qa gate, or are these tests good enough. Do NOT use to run all six axes (use pr-quality-all), and do NOT use to write…
multisim-verify-requirements
A review method that turns circuit design requirements into measurable tests and checks them against Multisim experiment data. It reports each requirement as passed, failed, or not yet verified.
Pair Programming
AI-assisted pair programming with multiple modes (driver/navigator/switch), real-time verification, quality monitoring, and comprehensive testing. Supports TDD, debugging, refactoring, and learning sessions. Features automatic role switching, continuous code review, security scanning, and performance optimization with…
code-review
Perform a structured code review of changes, checking for correctness, style, tests, and potential issues.