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 zookanalytics/gc-toolkit --skill review-triagegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zookanalytics/gc-toolkitWrote 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/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/review-triage)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/review-triage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/review-triage/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/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/review-triage"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/review-triage.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 | $0.00125 | $0.02906 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00050 | $0.01162 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00581 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00291 |
Grade A, and why
review-triage 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 today.
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 — 217 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review triage
You are classifying, not judging. Whether the change is correct is the
correctness check's question and it is already dispatched. Yours is narrower:
which specialist checks does this diff warrant? The usual honest answer is
none.
Inputs — three, in this order
- The check index —
review-checks.tomlat the commit under review. It declares the checks you may add. Read it first; it is the one place the available checks are declared. - The review bead —
check_name,anchor_bead,review_branch/review_baseorpr_number, and the dispatch-pinnedreviewed_oid. The anchor states what the change was for. - The diff, at the pinned commit —
git diff --statfirst, then a skim of the files the stat names. A skim is the method here; reading every hunk is the specialist reviewer's job, not yours.
The index contract
The check index is closed: you may add any check it declares and you may not
invent one. Parse it rather than eyeballing it. The parser and the index come
from different places and must be resolved separately: the parser is a pack
script, the index is the reviewed repo's own. A pack rung on the index ladder
would classify this rig against gc-toolkit's checks. The index comes out of the
dispatch-pinned commit, $REVIEWED_OID from input 2, not off disk — the tree
you stand in is your own worktree, not the commit you are classifying, and a
branch may change the index it is judged against:
PARSER=""
for c in "${GC_PACK_DIR:-}" "${GC_RIG_ROOT:-}"; do
[ -n "$c" ] && [ -x "$c/assets/scripts/review-checks.sh" ] && { PARSER="$c/assets/scripts/review-checks.sh"; break; }
done
INDEX=$(mktemp); FOUND=""
for c in "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)" "${GC_RIG_ROOT:-}"; do
[ -n "$c" ] || continue
git -C "$c" show "${REVIEWED_OID}:review-checks.toml" >"$INDEX" 2>/dev/null && { FOUND=1; break; }
done
[ -n "$FOUND" ] && [ -n "$PARSER" ] && "$PARSER" --file "$INDEX"
Each row gives you the check, its method, one line of purpose, and its phase — the stage transition by which it must read green. When a check applies is a judgment its method states, so read the method; the phase is fixed per check and not triage's to choose, and there is no applies-when column in the index.
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.
- today Changed · +6 lines d2f7ba06cea8
- 3d ago Changed · +10 lines 741378858604
- 4d ago Changed · +2 lines 5ff434a451f0
- 5d ago Changed · +58 lines · +29 tokens per session e2225ef79022
- 7d ago Changed 129f49fc1ecc
- 10d ago Changed · +2 lines cf9db6f1c601
- 12d ago Changed · +1 lines e2934ce212a1
- 17d ago First seen · 138 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A 7779fe00d8f5
review-triage is a skill published in the GitHub repository zookanalytics/gc-toolkit (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 125 tokens to every session and 2,906 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-10-01.
Other skills, from other repositories
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
link-check
Verify @file references in AIWG skills and agents against the linking contract — per-file or corpus-wide, with optional auto-fix.
great_cto
Use when the CTO describes a feature, task, or project goal. Orchestrates the full SDLC pipeline automatically based on project type.
anti-patterns
Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that greatcto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect (pre-impl), pm (planning), senior-dev (impl), l3-support (post-incident).
skeptical-triage
Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of 4 extra LLM turns.
cost-model
Standardized cost-estimation framework for greatcto plans. Forces explicit LLM cost, infra cost, human-supervision time, and the (defensible) human-equivalent comparison. Output format is parsable by the board's /api/cost path — must follow exactly.