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 ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm --skill swarm-pr-feedbackgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarmWrote 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/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/swarm-pr-feedback)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/swarm-pr-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/swarm-pr-feedback/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/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/swarm-pr-feedback"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zaxbyhub/opencode-swarm/swarm-pr-feedback.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Agent Snooping · line 13 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00061 | $0.01055 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00528 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00211 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
swarm-pr-feedback 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 9d 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 — 35 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Swarm PR Feedback
Read and follow ../../../.opencode/skills/swarm-pr-feedback/SKILL.md as the canonical workflow.
Codex Execution Notes
- Codex and ZCode sessions normally have no mechanical controller tools: that is canonical Profile B, not an error — both runtimes can spawn fresh-context subagents. Never report BLOCKED merely because those tools are absent — run verification lanes and every gate role as fresh independent subagents with the same one-row-per-item verdict contracts, and keep the ledger, ownership partition, and digest accounting yourself in working notes (never under
.swarm/, which is plugin runtime state). Use Profile C strictly separated sequential passes, with the procedural independence disclosed in the closure ledger, only when the session genuinely lacks a subagent mechanism. - Check out the PR branch locally before dispatching feedback lanes or verifying/fixing anything. Fetch the head ref if absent, preserve or surface all dirty tracked/untracked state, prove full HEAD equals the authoritative PR head SHA, and prove the final branch tracks the intended PR head remote/branch. In Profile A, a detached exact-head intake is valid because the first bind attaches only one unambiguous exact tracking ref; Profiles B/C must establish the branch themselves. Never use force or submodule-recursive checkout.
- Build the complete feedback ledger before editing: pasted feedback, GitHub comments/threads, requested changes, CI/check failures, merge conflicts, stale branch state, PR body claims, linked issues, commits, and any validated
swarm-pr-reviewhandoff artifact. Treat every item as a claim until source evidence proves or disproves it, and preserve original finding IDs and reviewer/critic provenance from handoff artifacts. - For a Profile-A review continuation, require the exact user command
/swarm pr-feedback <PR_URL> continue from .swarm/pr-review/<run_id>/feedback-handoff.json; its mechanical transition validates terminal review state and creates an unbound feedback gate. The artifact by itself does not authorize writes. - Verification (Profiles B/C): every FB item is owned by exactly one verification lane or pass, each returning one
[FEEDBACK-VERIFIED]row per owned item with the exact PR head SHA recorded. Under Profile A, when a lane result carries anoutput_ref, treat inline laneoutputas a preview and retrieve the full artifact via the runtime's lane-output retrieval capability before classifying; on any profile, degraded or incomplete lane outputs keep the affected items open as evidence gaps. No edits before verification settles. - Do not resolve GitHub review threads unless the user explicitly instructs it.
- Mandatory gates — Stage A and Stage B (+ closeout) on every profile. Stage A always runs exact
git diff --checkplus one proof command — the exact failing CI/test reproduction when available, otherwise a repo-appropriate targeted regression/test command — plus every build, typecheck, and lint/format category mechanically discovered from the repository; it never invents a no-op category to reach a fixed count. On Profiles B/C run these commands yourself and record command+output receipts in the ledger; any content change invalidates the receipts and restarts Stage A. Stage B: an independent reviewer role, then a test-engineer role, on the Stage-A-green diff (fresh subagents on B; strictly separated re-derivation passes on C). Closeout: a separate reviewer + critic pair on the Stage-B-approved diff. One verdict row per FB ID at every gate; record both closeout verdicts in the session task-gates artifact per the durable-session guidance. - Only if the session actually exposes the plugin's mechanical tools, run Profile A instead:
run_pr_feedback_stage_a, then the exact orderedswarm-pr-feedback:stage-b-reviewer,:stage-b-test,:closeout-reviewer, and:closeout-criticstructured modes,complete_pr_workflowarming, and the bound single-ref push. While that controller is active, direct subagent calls and free-form verdict prose are not equivalent evidence, and any edit restarts the sequence at Stage A. - Publication (Profiles B/C): after all gates pass on the unchanged diff, create one reviewed commit on the PR branch, push exactly that commit with a single non-force push through the repository's commit/PR workflow, then verify read-only that the remote head equals the pushed commit before any PR comment/body/thread write.
- Load the repository's test-authoring guidance before changing tests and the repository's PR publication workflow before pushing or updating the PR.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 35 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A b603e039e205
swarm-pr-feedback is a skill published in the GitHub repository ZaxbyHub/opencode-swarm (466 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 1,055 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
armada-ledger
Pick the right ledger for a finding. Use when writing defects, adversarial findings, or security findings. Triggers on: ledger, defect, adversarial, security finding, DEF-001, ADV-001, SEC-001.
armada-pr
PR-first finish for a feature lane. Use before reporting a feature done. Triggers on: PR, finish feature, gh pr create, merge, lane complete.
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
armada-gate
Run an evidence-gate checklist for each success criterion in the current phase. Use when checking if a phase is complete before marking it passed.
atomic-review
Compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", or invokes /atomic-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
generic-code-reviewer
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Supports any tech stack - HTML/CSS/JS, React, TypeScript, Node.js, Python, NestJS, Next.js, and more. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.