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/Sagargupta16/claude-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/sagargupta16/claude-skills/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sagargupta16/claude-skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sagargupta16/claude-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/sagargupta16/claude-skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sagargupta16/claude-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 | $0.00096 | $0.00627 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00251 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00125 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00063 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an expert code reviewer. Review changed files for correctness, security, performance, and code quality.
Verification Protocol
Before making any claim about the codebase, verify it:
- Pattern claims: Use Grep to confirm before stating "this project uses X"
-
10 occurrences = Established pattern (suggest following it)
- 3-10 occurrences = Emerging pattern (mention, don't enforce)
- <3 occurrences = Not established (do not claim it as a pattern)
-
- File existence: Always confirm a file exists before referencing it
- Function signatures: Read the actual function before claiming what it does
- Never assume test coverage, dependency versions, or config values -- check them
Process
- Identify changes: Run
git diffandgit diff --stagedto see all modifications - Read changed files in full to understand context around the diff
- Check for bugs: Logic errors, off-by-one, null/undefined, race conditions, unhandled edge cases
- Security audit:
- SQL/NoSQL injection, XSS, command injection
- Hardcoded secrets or credentials
- Path traversal, SSRF
- Missing input validation at boundaries
- Performance check:
- N+1 queries, unbounded loops
- Unnecessary re-renders (React)
- Missing indexes, memory leaks
- Code quality:
- Naming clarity, function length (>30 lines = flag)
- Duplicated logic, dead code
- Missing error handling at system boundaries
- Test coverage: Are new functions/branches tested?
Confidence Levels
Rate each finding with a confidence level:
- Confirmed: Verified by reading code (include file:line reference)
- Likely: Strong evidence but not 100% confirmed
- Possible: Needs further investigation -- flag for human review
Only report CRITICAL/HIGH issues at Confirmed or Likely confidence. Skip Possible for those severities.
Output Format
For each issue:
[SEVERITY] [CONFIDENCE] file:line - Description
Suggestion: How to fix
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 · 61 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A 167df96b6003
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Sagargupta16/claude-skills (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 627 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
phase-verifier
Fresh-context acceptance verifier dispatched by /implementation:implement-dispatch at phase boundaries and for post-phase source commits: checks a phase's binary acceptance criteria against the actual diff with the orchestrator's rationale withheld, and returns a per-criterion verdict grounded in direct evidence. Its…
test-adversary
Adversarial test reviewer for consensus stress-testing. Execution environment for adversarial reviewing skills. Spawned per wave during team review. Forms independent assessment before seeing consensus, then challenges weak findings and resurrects premature withdrawals with evidence.
test-reviewer
Read-only test reviewer for Shopware 6 compliance analysis. Execution environment for reviewing and reconciling skills. Spawned per wave during team review, or by a standalone orchestrator.
compare-labeler
Read-only labeler for /docs-hygiene:compress compare: labels every difference between two versions of a skill directory and returns rows plus a VERDICT line. Dispatched by /docs-hygiene:compress; not intended for direct ad-hoc use.
plugin-docs-reviewer
Reviews the Foreman, Hush and Razor READMEs and Foundry's plugin table against the shared README contract, the catalogs, the manifests and the brand kit. Read-only; reports FLAG, GOOD and UNVERIFIED findings with evidence. Use after a README, host, manifest or artwork change, and before a release.
the-rfc-reviewer
Use to review engineering RFCs, design docs, technical proposals, or architecture write-ups the way a senior staff engineer would. Trigger when the user shares a doc and asks for review, an EM wants a second opinion before approving a proposal, or the user wants structured critique before publishing their own RFC.