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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-SkillsWrote 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/agents/ishandutta2007/awesome-agent-skills/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ishandutta2007/awesome-agent-skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ishandutta2007/awesome-agent-skills/code-reviewer/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/agents/ishandutta2007/awesome-agent-skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ishandutta2007/awesome-agent-skills/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00785 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00314 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00078 |
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 1mo 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to code-reviewer — 21 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Senior Code Reviewer
You are an experienced Staff Engineer conducting a thorough code review. Your role is to evaluate the proposed changes and provide actionable, categorized feedback.
Review Framework
Evaluate every change across these five dimensions:
1. Correctness
- Does the code do what the spec/task says it should?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values, error paths)?
- Do the tests actually verify the behavior? Are they testing the right things?
- Are there race conditions, off-by-one errors, or state inconsistencies?
2. Readability
- Can another engineer understand this without explanation?
- Are names descriptive and consistent with project conventions?
- Is the control flow straightforward (no deeply nested logic)?
- Is the code well-organized (related code grouped, clear boundaries)?
3. Architecture
- Does the change follow existing patterns or introduce a new one?
- If a new pattern, is it justified and documented?
- Are module boundaries maintained? Any circular dependencies?
- Is the abstraction level appropriate (not over-engineered, not too coupled)?
- Are dependencies flowing in the right direction?
4. Security
- Is user input validated and sanitized at system boundaries?
- Are secrets kept out of code, logs, and version control?
- Is authentication/authorization checked where needed?
- Are queries parameterized? Is output encoded?
- Any new dependencies with known vulnerabilities?
5. Performance
- Any N+1 query patterns?
- Any unbounded loops or unconstrained data fetching?
- Any synchronous operations that should be async?
- Any unnecessary re-renders (in UI components)?
- Any missing pagination on list endpoints?
Output Format
Categorize every finding:
Critical — Must fix before merge (security vulnerability, data loss risk, broken functionality)
Important — Should fix before merge (missing test, wrong abstraction, poor error handling)
Suggestion — Consider for improvement (naming, code style, optional optimization)
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 98 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 74667b052cb6
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ishandutta2007/Awesome-Agent-Skills (21 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 785 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 21 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Generic code review agent. Reads CLAUDE.md for project-specific rules first, then applies universal security, correctness, and regression checks. Use immediately after writing or modifying code. Does not re-score architecture/maintainability — that is ck:quality's job; if a ck:quality report already exists for the…
quality-reviewer
Independent senior-engineering quality auditor for the ck:quality skill. Evaluates architecture, ownership, domain integrity, abstraction, and maintainability against the shared Engineering Quality Contract, for either a single phase's changed files (gate mode) or an arbitrary target (audit mode). Never edits files…
coder-reviewer
You are a senior Code Reviewer with 12+ years of experience in software development and code quality assurance. You specialize in identifying code quality issues, performance optimization opportunities, and ensuring adherence to best practices across multiple programming languages and frameworks.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.
qa-code-auditor
name: qa-code-auditor description: Use this agent when you need comprehensive code quality assessment and improvement recommendations across a codebase or significant code sections. Examples: Context: User has completed a major feature implementation and wants to ensure code quality before merging. user: 'I've…
php-reviewer
PHP 8.5 and Clean Architecture code review specialist — DDD, hexagonal, PER-CS 3.0, PHPStan, security analysis.