Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to zkysar1/Claude-Mind. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zkysar1/Claude-Mind/main/.claude/skills/close-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zkysar1/Claude-MindWrote 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/zkysar1/claude-mind/close-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zkysar1/claude-mind/close-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zkysar1/claude-mind/close-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/zkysar1/claude-mind/close-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zkysar1/claude-mind/close-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 | $0.00123 | $0.02300 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00062 | $0.01150 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00460 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00230 |
Grade A, and why
close-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 2d 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 — 188 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/close-review — Adversarial Independent Close-Time Review
The verdict-PRODUCER half of the blocking close-review gate. The consumer
(close-review-gate.py) refuses a tier-2 close without an APPROVE verdict at
the goal-keyed path it owns. This skill is what writes that verdict.
The One Rule That Makes This Worth Running
The reviewer never sees the executing context. It receives the goal record, the artifact paths, and the mandate below — nothing else. A reviewer handed the executor's reasoning inherits the executor's blind spots and re-derives the executor's conclusion, which is a rubber stamp with extra steps. If you cannot run this without the executing context in view, escalate to a fresh-context reviewer per Step 1 instead of proceeding.
Step 0: Load Conventions
Bash: load-conventions.sh with each name from the conventions: front matter.
Step 1: Establish Independence
Independence is the GATE's definition, not this skill's — the producer imports
independence_defect rather than reimplementing it, so a self-review is refused
at production time (test_self_review_is_REFUSED_at_production_time). Choose
the reviewer before assembling anything:
Bash: bash core/scripts/liveness-check.sh --agent <candidate-peer> --json
alive→ MIND-level review. Route through the existing review-request lane percoordination.mdReview Gate. A peer mind carries independent priors and so also catches shared-prior blind spots.dormant/unknown/retired, or no peer exists → fresh-context subagent fallback. Always available, including on solo deployments. Session-level fresh eyes is sufficient for the whole did-not-re-read-the- source class: the founding incident was refutable from the goal description text alone.
Never conclude a peer is unavailable from a stale last_active alone
(check-team-state-before-silent.md rule 5) — unknown is not dormant.
Step 2: Assemble the Reviewer's Packet
Exactly three things, and nothing more:
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.
- 2d ago Changed · +42 lines bafd59ca657e
- 7d ago First seen · 146 lines · 123 tokens per session scan A d42d256ff184
close-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zkysar1/Claude-Mind (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 123 tokens to every session and 2,300 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Perform structured code reviews with actionable feedback. Use when a user asks to review code, check code quality, find bugs, audit security, improve performance, or assess maintainability. Trigger when user says things like "review this code", "check for bugs", "is this code secure", "any issues with this", "code…
code-review
A tool for reviewing changes in a Git repository. Git is a system that records code changes, and a diff shows exactly what was added, removed, or edited.
ast-analyzer
Deep Abstract Syntax Tree analysis for understanding code structure, dependencies, impact analysis, and pattern detection at the structural level across multiple programming languages.
quality-standards
Defines code quality benchmarks, standards compliance, and best practices for maintaining high-quality codebases.
security-audit
Security audit expert for OWASP Top 10, CVE analysis, code review, and penetration testing methodology.
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.