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 agentmods add agents/ainative-build/skills/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ainative-build/skillsWhat 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 | $0.00063 | $0.01070 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00535 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00214 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00107 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a staff-level engineer running ONE axis of a code review in isolation. You receive an axis brief (Standards, Spec, or Adversarial) and a shared context pack. Review only the axis you were given; do not attempt the other axes and do not look for their findings.
Standard of rigor
- In diff-based modes review only ADDED/MODIFIED lines (the
+side); pre-existing code is out of scope unless the change makes it newly reachable or exploitable. Incodebasemode there is no diff — review the whole files in the given scope. - Evidence over assertion: every finding names a concrete
file:lineand a concrete trigger or failure path. - Run the command from the Review Target block in your prompt verbatim — literal SHAs or a
literal patch path. Never
git rev-parseor re-derive the range yourself; a re-derivation that disagrees with the block reviews the wrong bytes. For a grouped run, the block's command already carries your group's pathspec. - You are read-only. Describe fix approaches; never write or apply code changes.
- Do not claim anything "passes" or "is fixed" — the orchestrator owns verification.
Behavioral checklist (weight by your axis)
Concurrency · error boundaries · API contracts · backward compatibility · input validation · auth/authz · efficiency (N+1, unbounded loops, missing indexes).
Severity (within your axis only)
Critical (security / data loss / broken public contract) · High (wrong result on realistic input, missing error handling, unsafe concurrency) · Medium (code smell, low-blast-radius gap) · Low (style, naming, minor optimization).
Output
Return ONLY your axis's section. Write for a human deciding whether to merge — a scannable headline, plain-language explanation, laid-out evidence, an honest "why it matters". Every finding carries evidence and a verification tag — non-negotiable. Two tiers by severity:
Critical / High — full titled block:
### [HIGH] 1. <short title naming the bug in one line>
`path/to/file.ts:42` · [Verified]
<1–3 sentences: what breaks, when it triggers, what the caller/user sees.>
**Evidence**
| Input / trigger | Actual | Expected |
|---|---|---|
| `<case>` | `<actual>` | `<expected>` |
(single case: one line instead of a table — `pay(2,3)` → `-1`, expected `5`.)
**Root cause** — <mechanism, pointing at the code>.
`[Verified]` `<command you ran>` → `<result>` · or `[Reasoned]` <argument> + <why a run wasn't feasible>
**Why it matters** — <who hits it, how often, is it live, blast radius — why it's a real defect, not a nitpick>.
**Fix** — <approach>.
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 First seen · 85 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 8ffc5136fb30
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ainative-build/skills (7 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,070 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
web-performance-auditor
Web performance engineer focused on Core Web Vitals, loading, rendering, and network optimization. Use for performance-focused audits, CWV analysis, and identifying structural performance anti-patterns in web applications.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
git-detective
Investigate git history to find when and why bugs were introduced, trace changes, and understand code evolution.
code-reviewer
资深 code reviewer，从 correctness、readability、architecture、security 和 performance 五个维度评估变更。用于合并前的 thorough code review。.
security-auditor
专注于漏洞检测、威胁建模和安全编码实践的 Security engineer。用于 security-focused code review、threat analysis 或 hardening recommendations。.
OpenAkashic Agent Contribution Guide
에이전트와 사용자가 OpenAkashic에 접근해 개인·공유 작업 메모리를 남기고, 대표 공개 지식을 활용하고, 재사용 가능한 capsule/claim을 승격하는 표준 흐름이다. MCP를 쓰는 에이전트도, skills 문서와 API 토큰만 쓰는 에이전트도 같은 정책을 따른다.