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/vanducng/skills/code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vanducng/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 | $0.00035 | $0.01371 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00685 |
| Sonnet 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 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 — 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 168 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 9de3147eb753
code-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository vanducng/skills (5 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,371 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
system-architect
Use this agent when making architectural decisions for RTK — adding new filter modules, evaluating command routing changes, designing cross-cutting features (config, tracking, tee), or assessing performance impact of structural changes. Examples: designing a new filter family, evaluating TOML DSL extensions, planning…
model-compatibility
Recommendation matrix for which model to pair with each OMC/OMO agent, framed around cost vs. quality. This page exists so the recurring "어떤 모델을 어느 agent에 박아야 함?" question stops being tribal Discord knowledge.
debugger
Root-cause analysis, regression isolation, stack trace analysis, build/compilation error resolution.
trellis-research
Code and tech search expert. Finds files, patterns, and tech solutions, and PERSISTS every finding to the current task's research/ directory. No code modifications outside that directory.
check
Code quality auditor for the Trellis channel runtime. Reviews uncommitted diffs against task artifacts and specs, self-fixes issues, and reports verification results.
design-rules
Condensed 10 Golden Rules from the Agent Design Bible.