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 wyattowalsh/agents --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wyattowalsh/agentsWrote 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/wyattowalsh/agents/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wyattowalsh/agents/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wyattowalsh/agents/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/wyattowalsh/agents/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wyattowalsh/agents/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 | $0.00036 | $0.04359 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.01744 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00872 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00436 |
Grade A, and why
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 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 — 270 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Use /review as the canonical first-party review entrypoint. It covers code review, session diffs, scoped files, PRs, full audits, behavior-preserving simplification review, source/provenance review for external skills, specialist audit lenses, browser-grounded frontend/a11y/web-quality review, review history, delta reports, false-positive learnings, SARIF output, Conventional Comments output, and approval-gated fix passes.
honest-review, simplify, and external-skill-auditor are not separate skills. Their behavior lives here as /review, /review simplify, and /review source.
Default posture: read-only, evidence-first, and scoped. Do not perform feature work, broad rewrites, installs, or fixes until the user explicitly approves selected findings or invokes a mode that permits edits and passes its gates.
Canonical Vocabulary
Use these canonical terms exactly.
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| review | Evidence-first inspection of code, diffs, PRs, repositories, sources, or proposed simplifications |
| scope | The exact files, directories, PR, git range, source, or snippet under review |
| triage | First pass that classifies scope, risk, changed files, specialist lenses, and validation requirements |
| finding | A discrete issue with citation, reasoning, severity, confidence, evidence, and recommended action |
| strength | A positive review observation that explains what should be preserved |
| confidence | Score from 0.0 to 1.0; report >= 0.7, mark 0.3-0.7 unconfirmed, discard < 0.3 unless P0/S0 |
| severity | Priority/scope classification such as P0-P3 and S0-S3 |
| citation anchor | A verified [file:start-end] source location or source/provenance anchor |
| reasoning chain | Why the finding matters, written before the finding statement |
| evidence | Tool, source, test, docs, grep, dependency, or research proof that supports or rejects a finding |
| lens | Specialist perspective such as security, supply chain, CI, SQL, data, frontend, a11y, web quality, MCP, agentic, or docs |
| skill asset | A SKILL.md, skill directory, skill eval, skill script, reference, package, catalog row, or generated skill doc reviewed through skill-creator structural patterns |
| simplification lens | Behavior-preserving review of complexity, invariants, semantic-change risk, and clarity opportunities |
| source/provenance lens | Review of external skill/source trust, executable surfaces, owner, license, credentials, network behavior, and dedupe |
| approval gate | Mandatory pause before editing files or applying fixes |
| learning | Stored false-positive dismissal used to reduce repeated noise in future reviews |
| mode | Explicit or inferred review workflow such as session, scoped, PR, range, audit, simplify, source, history, delta, learnings, or fix |
| shard map | Wave 0 ownership plan for large parallel reviews, with lane IDs, shard IDs, file/source ownership, coverage expectations, and merge status |
What ships with it
36 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.
- evals/evals.json 17 KB
- references/auto-fix-protocol.md 6.4 KB
- references/checklists.md 21 KB
- references/ci-integration.md 5.3 KB
- references/conventional-comments.md 3.9 KB
- references/dependency-context.md 3.8 KB
- references/finding-contract.md 2.9 KB
- references/judge-protocol.md 7.3 KB
- references/output-formats.md 11 KB
- references/research-validation.md 16 KB
- references/review-lenses.md 9.3 KB
- references/review-state.md 3.3 KB
- references/sarif-output.md 4.9 KB
- references/self-verification.md 4.4 KB
- references/simplification-lens.md 4.3 KB
- references/simplification-taxonomy.md 4.1 KB
- references/skill-asset-review.md 5.3 KB
- references/source-provenance-lens.md 2.8 KB
- references/specialist-lenses.md 4.9 KB
- references/supply-chain-security.md 6.5 KB
- references/team-templates.md 20 KB
- references/triage-protocol.md 11 KB
- scripts/asset_toolkit/__init__.py 303 B runs code
- scripts/asset_toolkit/_shared.py 5.6 KB runs code
- scripts/asset_toolkit/common.py 3.0 KB runs code
- scripts/asset_toolkit/package.py 43 KB runs code
- scripts/asset_toolkit/validate_evals.py 11 KB runs code
- scripts/asset_toolkit/validate_hooks.py 13 KB runs code
- scripts/asset_toolkit/validate_skill.py 3.6 KB runs code
- scripts/check.py 2.5 KB runs code
- scripts/finding-formatter.py 13 KB runs code
- scripts/learnings-store.py 8.8 KB runs code
- scripts/project-scanner.py 15 KB runs code
- scripts/review-store.py 16 KB runs code
- scripts/sarif-uploader.py 5.2 KB runs code
- scripts/source-audit.py 4.1 KB runs code
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 · 270 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 3e6d1dd6a10c
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository wyattowalsh/agents (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 4,359 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
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"…
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…
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…
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…