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 XnLemon/Neneko-skill --skill neneko-crgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/XnLemon/Neneko-skillWrote 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/xnlemon/neneko-skill/neneko-cr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xnlemon/neneko-skill/neneko-cr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xnlemon/neneko-skill/neneko-cr/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/xnlemon/neneko-skill/neneko-cr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xnlemon/neneko-skill/neneko-cr.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 | $0.00145 | $0.13933 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00058 | $0.05573 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.02787 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.01393 |
Grade A, and why
neneko-cr 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 2mo 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 — 981 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Neneko CR
Overview
Run a repository-agnostic maintainer code-review loop for the target GitHub
repository selected by the user or discovered from the current workspace. The
skill name is neneko-cr, and the workflow is generic CR: adapt to the target
project's language, build system, CI, branch policy, review policy, and report
conventions instead of assuming a particular repository.
Resolve the target repository in this order:
- An explicit repository, PR URL/number, local checkout, or target named by the user.
CR_TARGET_REPOSITORY(<owner>/<repo>).- The
originremote of the current checkout when that checkout is the target project rather than a dedicated review workspace. - The repository associated with an explicitly supplied local path.
- If the current checkout looks like a dedicated review workspace and no target is configured, ask for the target instead of reviewing the workspace itself.
- If more than one target remains plausible, ask the user to choose; do not silently review the wrong repository.
Resolve the local target checkout in this order:
CR_TARGET_CHECKOUT.- A local path supplied by the user.
- The current checkout when its
originmatches the target repository. - A sibling checkout with a matching remote when one is available.
- GitHub/API-only review when no local checkout is available and the task does not require local edits or tests.
Resolve the review workspace and report root from CR_WORKSPACE and
CR_REPORT_ROOT when set. Otherwise use the current repository when it
contains this skill and report tooling, then its existing report convention,
and finally a repo-relative reports/ directory. Prefer repo-relative paths;
never rely on a user-specific absolute path.
Useful optional configuration includes CR_OWN_AUTHORS (additional own-PR
logins), CR_DEFAULT_BASE (base branch override), CR_SOFT_CHECKS (checks
allowed to remain non-green during review), and CR_MERGE_POLICY (whether
final merge requires a human). A repository's documented policy takes
precedence over these defaults.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 981 lines · 145 tokens per session scan A be0218408210
neneko-cr is a skill published in the GitHub repository XnLemon/Neneko-skill (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 145 tokens to every session and 13,933 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
gh-pr-review
Review GitHub Pull Requests using the gh CLI. Use when a user asks to review a PR, perform code review, check a pull request, or provide feedback on proposed changes. Triggers on phrases like "review PR", "review pull request", "check PR", "code review".
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…
changes-report
Report all repository changes that entered a target branch during one required date or period, grouped by product change and written as plain English for a broad audience. Use for daily, weekly, date-range, or relative-period change summaries rather than explaining one known diff.
coderabbit-triage
Triage unresolved CodeRabbit feedback on the current GitHub pull request. Use for read-only disposition and, only when separately authorized, scoped remediation and remote thread closure.
roadmap-task-deliver
Deliver the first eligible unfinished roadmap task through implementation, review, green CI, PR merge, and a task-status update. Use for autonomous delivery from local roadmap and task files. Files can be outside the code repository or outside Git.
jira-issue-deliver
Autonomously deliver one Jira issue from intake to a ready GitHub pull request. Use only when the user authorizes implementation, commits, pushes, PR state changes, CI remediation, and resolution of requested automated review feedback.