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 commands/ab604/claude-code-r-skills/code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ab604/claude-code-r-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 | $0.00022 | $0.00708 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00354 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00142 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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 3d 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 — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/code-review - Code Quality Review
Review uncommitted code changes for security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and R best practices.
Review Process
- Identify Changes -
git diff --name-only HEAD - Review Each File - Check against criteria below
- Generate Report - Severity-rated findings
- Block or Approve - Based on issue severity
Review Categories
Security
- No hardcoded credentials (API keys, passwords, tokens)
- No sensitive data exposure in outputs or logs
- Safe file path handling
- Parameterized database queries
- Input validation in Shiny/Plumber apps
Code Quality (R-Specific)
- Functions under 50 lines
- Files under 400 lines (ideally 200-300)
- No deep nesting (max 4 levels)
- Proper error handling with informative messages
- Type-stable outputs (avoid sapply, use map_*)
- Modern tidyverse patterns (native pipe, .by, join_by)
Best Practices
- Meaningful variable and function names (snake_case)
- No code duplication
- Tests included for new functionality
- Documentation for exported functions
- No global state modification
Severity Levels
| Level | Action | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Must fix before commit | Hardcoded secrets, SQL injection |
| HIGH | Should fix before commit | Missing error handling, no tests |
| MEDIUM | Fix when possible | Style issues, minor refactoring |
| LOW | Consider for improvement | Documentation, naming suggestions |
Report Format
## Code Review: [files reviewed]
### CRITICAL Issues
- **[file:line]** - [description]
- Fix: [suggested fix]
### HIGH Issues
- **[file:line]** - [description]
### MEDIUM Issues
- **[file:line]** - [description]
### Suggestions
- [improvement ideas]
## Verdict: APPROVED / NEEDS CHANGES
Blocking Criteria
Block commit if:
- Any CRITICAL issues found
- More than 2 HIGH issues found
- Security vulnerabilities present
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 108 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 8a1972bbf313
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository ab604/claude-code-r-skills (197 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 708 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.