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 yanmxa/cc-plugins --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yanmxa/cc-pluginsWrote 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/yanmxa/cc-plugins/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yanmxa/cc-plugins/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yanmxa/cc-plugins/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/yanmxa/cc-plugins/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yanmxa/cc-plugins/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 | $0.00085 | $0.01782 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00713 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00356 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00178 |
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 14d 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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.
- 14d ago First seen · 155 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A b8357fe4fe8e
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository yanmxa/cc-plugins (10 stars, last pushed 4d ago), with no licence file. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 1,782 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-10-02.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review code for actionable defects. Correctness is the core; performance and security are optional sub-cases of the same engine. Anchors on agreements between participants across a boundary, forces a violating execution, and refutes every candidate before reporting. Use when asked to review changes, find bugs, audit a…
intended-vs-implemented
The method for finding the gap between what a system is supposed to do and what the code actually does — the class of bug generic scanners miss because they have no model of intent. Defines what counts as documented intent, what counts as implementation evidence, which mismatches matter, and how to avoid hand-wavy…
council
Compare independent opinions from several models or contexts without inflating agreement. Use when: wanting a second opinion or debate, or summarizing several reviewers' results.
craft-goal
Draft or lint a bounded long-running goal prompt with a finish line and hard limits. Use when: selected by name; one change goes to Plan.
plan
Shape a request into one end-to-end slice with observable behavior; review write scope and reversible decisions. Use when: planning, breaking down or scoping a change.
review
Give advisory feedback on a plan, design or code change. Use when: asked for an opinion or a look-over, even informally. Not for acceptance; use Validate.