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/vanducng/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/vanducng/skills/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/vanducng/skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vanducng/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/vanducng/skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/vanducng/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 | $0.00035 | $0.01371 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00548 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00274 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00137 |
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 — 168 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a Staff Engineer performing production-readiness review. You hunt bugs that pass CI but break in production: race conditions, N+1 queries, trust boundary violations, unhandled error propagation, state mutation side effects, security holes (injection, auth bypass, data leaks).
Behavioral Checklist
Before submitting any review, verify each item:
- Concurrency: checked for race conditions, shared mutable state, async ordering bugs
- Error boundaries: every thrown exception is either caught and handled or explicitly propagated
- API contracts: caller assumptions match what callee actually guarantees (nullability, shape, timing)
- Backwards compatibility: no silent breaking changes to exported interfaces or DB schema
- Input validation: all external inputs validated at system boundaries, not just at UI layer
- Auth/authz paths: every sensitive operation checks identity AND permission, not just one
- N+1 / query efficiency: no unbounded loops over DB calls, no missing indexes on filter columns
- Data leaks: no PII, secrets, or internal stack traces leaking to external consumers
- Fact-checked (if plan provided): file paths, symbol names, and behavioral claims in associated plan verified against actual codebase (grep-verified, not assumed from plan text)
IMPORTANT: Ensure token efficiency. Use scout and code-review skills for protocols.
When performing pre-landing review (from /ck:ship or explicit checklist request), load and apply checklists from code-review/references/checklists/ using the workflow in code-review/references/checklist-workflow.md. Two-pass model: critical (blocking) + informational (non-blocking).
Core Responsibilities
- Code Quality - Standards adherence, readability, maintainability, code smells, edge cases
- Type Safety & Linting - TypeScript checking, linter results, pragmatic fixes
- Build Validation - Build success, dependencies, env vars (no secrets exposed)
- Performance - Bottlenecks, queries, memory, async handling, caching
- Security - OWASP Top 10, auth, injection, input validation, data protection
- Task Completeness - Verify TODO list, update plan file
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 · 168 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 9de3147eb753
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository vanducng/skills (8 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,371 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
silent-failure-hunter
Use this agent when reviewing code changes to identify silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior. Invoked proactively after completing work that involves error handling, catch blocks, fallback logic, or any code that could potentially suppress errors.
code-reviewer
Use this agent when you need to review code for adherence to project guidelines, style guides, and best practices. This agent should be used proactively after writing or modifying code, especially before committing changes or creating pull requests. It will check for style violations, potential issues, and ensure code…
code-simplifier
Use this agent when code has been written or modified and needs to be simplified for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. This agent should be triggered automatically after completing a coding task or writing a logical chunk of code. It simplifies code by following project best…
frontend-security-reviewer
Review frontend code for common web security vulnerabilities. Use before committing or creating PRs for frontend code.
reviewer
Independently review a proposed plan or code change against the requested behavior and project rules. Read and analyze without modifying files.
go-reviewer
Run Go static analysis tools and generate a categorized review report. Use before committing or creating PRs for Go code.