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/oghie/skillsetsWrote 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/oghie/skillsets/concurrency-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/oghie/skillsets/concurrency-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/oghie/skillsets/concurrency-code-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/oghie/skillsets/concurrency-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/oghie/skillsets/concurrency-code-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 | $0.00176 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00070 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00035 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00018 |
Grade A, and why
concurrency-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 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
Concurrency Code Review Command
Goal
Review code for races, deadlocks, starvation, lost signals, unsafe message passing, and unbounded blocking.
Procedure
- List execution units and shared state.
- Run
scripts/concurrency_static_scan.py <path>. - Inspect lock/semaphore/condition ownership manually.
- Search for sleeps, blocking calls, logging, allocation, and remote calls inside critical sections.
- Search for non-blocking operations and verify completion before buffer reuse.
- Identify one plausible bad interleaving for each risky area.
- Recommend the smallest protocol change that restores the violated property.
Output
- Findings first, ordered by severity.
- File and line references.
- Violated property: safety, liveness, fairness, bounded blocking, or deadline.
- Suggested fix.
- Tests or traces required.
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 · 21 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c56b8da46fd5
concurrency-code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository oghie/skillsets (9 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 176 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
diff-review
Generate a visual HTML diff review, before/after architecture comparison with code review analysis.
plan-review
Generate a visual HTML plan review, current codebase state vs. proposed implementation plan.
fact-check
Verify the factual accuracy of a document against the actual codebase, correct inaccuracies in place.
ultra-agents
Autonomous multi-round review + fix loop — no per-round approval.
check_comments
Call the checkcomments MCP tool to fetch the comments I've accepted, as structured edit instructions. List them back to me grouped by file, each with its quoted passage and note — but don't edit anything yet. If I then say "address them", make each edit and call resolvecomment per comment.
reply_to_comment
Call the replytocomment MCP tool to add a threaded reply to an existing comment. Read the comment id and the reply text from $ARGUMENTS. Use this to respond to my feedback, or as the author/defender role in a review thread before I resolve it. If no id is given, ask me which comment to reply to.