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/GuillemRoca/agent-skills-androidWrote 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/commands/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/review/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/commands/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/review.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00386 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00154 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00077 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00039 |
Grade A, and why
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 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.
What it actually says
/review — Code Review
Review code across five axes with categorized findings.
Instructions
Load and follow these skills:
code-review-and-qualityfromskills/code-review-and-quality/SKILL.mdsecurity-and-hardeningfromskills/security-and-hardening/SKILL.mdperformance-optimizationfromskills/performance-optimization/SKILL.md
Five-Axis Review
1. Correctness
- All UI states handled? (loading, success, error, empty)
- Nulls handled safely? (no
!!, proper safe calls) - Coroutines structured correctly? (scope, cancellation)
- Room queries match schema? Migrations correct?
2. Readability
- Kotlin idioms used? (when, sealed classes, extension functions)
- Clear naming? Functions < 40 lines?
- Consistent with existing codebase patterns?
3. Architecture
- Layer boundaries respected? (UI → Domain → Data)
- StateFlow exposed (not MutableStateFlow)?
- Constructor injection (not field injection)?
- No business logic in Composables?
4. Security
- No hardcoded secrets?
- Input validated at boundaries?
- Exported components permission-protected?
- No sensitive data in logs?
5. Performance
- No N+1 queries?
- Heavy work off main thread?
- Compose recompositions optimized?
- Large datasets paginated?
Finding Categories
| Category | Action |
|---|---|
| Critical | Must fix before merge |
| Important | Should fix before merge |
| Suggestion | Optional improvement |
| Nit | Formatting preference |
| FYI | Context, no action needed |
Verification
Run before approving:
./gradlew test
./gradlew assembleDebug
./gradlew lint
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 · 0 tokens per session scan A 025084c41003
review is a command published in the GitHub repository GuillemRoca/agent-skills-android (3 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 386 tokens. 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 commands, from other repositories
al-pr-prepare
Prepare a clean, documented pull request draft for AL features or fixes with summary, testing notes, and checklist. ALDC workflow (Copilot prompt al-pr-prepare); invoke explicitly.
fdk-refactor
Reduce function complexity in a Freshworks app to meet cyclomatic complexity ≤ 7 per function. Extracts helper functions, simplifies conditionals, and preserves behavior while improving code quality.
code-review
Automated code review with swarm intelligence.
pr-enhance
Command "pr-enhance" from smith-horn/skillsmith, covering pr-enhance, usage, options, examples and fetch/manage pr data via the cli escape hatch.
reviewer
Code review using batch file analysis for comprehensive reviews.
repo-analyze
Deep analysis of GitHub repository with AI insights.