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 yeaight7/agent-powerups --skill risk-based-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yeaight7/agent-powerupsWrote 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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/risk-based-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yeaight7/agent-powerups/risk-based-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yeaight7/agent-powerups/risk-based-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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/risk-based-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yeaight7/agent-powerups/risk-based-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 | $0.00052 | $0.00784 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00392 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
risk-based-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 3d 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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Not all code changes deserve the same level of scrutiny. A typo fix in a README is low risk; a change to the authentication middleware is critical. Allocate review attention based on the danger of the change, and state that judgment before giving feedback.
When to Use
- Reviewing a PR and deciding how deep to go
- The diff touches auth, payments, cryptography, or database migrations
- The change hits core business logic, shared utilities, or public APIs
- Sanity-checking your own plan before implementing a sensitive change
Inputs
- The diff or PR under review (and its file list)
- Repository access to inspect history and ownership of touched paths
Workflow
-
Size the change first. Pull the file list and line counts so the risk call rests on real scope, not a guess.
gh pr view --json files,additions,deletions # files touched + size gh pr diff --stat # per-file churn -
Check churn and ownership on touched paths. Frequently-changed or single-owner files raise risk.
git log --oneline -10 -- path/to/changed/file # recent history git log --format='%an' -- path/to/changed/file | sort -u # owners -
Classify the change into one risk category based on what it touches:
- Critical Risk (auth, payments, cryptography, database migrations): require 100% test coverage for the change; require explicit human sign-off; look for edge cases, null pointers, and race conditions.
- High Risk (core business logic, shared utilities, public API changes): require unit and integration tests; check backwards compatibility and blast radius (see change-impact-check).
- Low Risk (UI tweaks, isolated components, internal tools): focus on readability, naming conventions, and simple unit tests.
-
State the Risk Category explicitly at the top of your review, before any line-level feedback, so the reader knows the bar being applied.
-
Review to the bar for that category. Apply the category's requirements; do not under-review a critical change or over-burden a low-risk one.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 66 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 0b73a35e895e
risk-based-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository yeaight7/agent-powerups (6 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 784 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 2026-09-14.
Other skills, from other repositories
github-code-review
Review PRs: diffs, inline comments via gh or REST.
simplify-code
Sequential 3-lens cleanup of recent code changes.
requesting-code-review
Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.
kodama-constraints
Enforce non-negotiable safety, scope, security, and quality constraints for implementation and review work.
hqe
Comprehensive codebase health auditing, remediation, and verification skill based on the canonical HQE Protocol v5.0.0.
adk-review
Reviews the uncommitted changes in an adk-python working tree and reports correctness, design, public-API stability, test, sample and documentation gaps as a prioritized findings report, fixing them only when asked. Use when the user asks to review local changes, wants a self-review before opening a pull request, asks…