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 skills add 0xNyk/oneclaw --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/0xNyk/oneclawWrote 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/skills/0xnyk/oneclaw/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/0xnyk/oneclaw/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0xnyk/oneclaw/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/skills/0xnyk/oneclaw/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0xnyk/oneclaw/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 | $0.00381 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00152 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00038 |
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 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
Code Review
Use this skill when the user asks for a code review, audit, or “what could be wrong here”. The output should be a review, not a rewrite: prioritize bugs, security risks, behavioral regressions, and missing tests.
Workflow
- Ask for scope if missing: the PR/branch, files, and what “done” means.
- Read the relevant code and configs (don’t skim; follow the call chain).
- Enumerate findings ordered by severity:
- Critical: security/data loss/corruption, auth issues, remote execution, unsafe deserialization
- Major: crashes, correctness issues, race conditions, broken invariants
- Minor: edge cases, confusing behavior, maintainability costs
- Nit: style/readability (only after substantive issues)
- For each finding:
- Point to the exact file/line (or function) and explain impact
- Suggest a concrete fix (minimal diff) and/or a test that would catch it
- Call out testing gaps explicitly (what you didn’t verify).
Checklist (use as prompts while reviewing)
- Input validation, boundary checks, and error handling
- Security: secrets exposure, path traversal, command injection, SSRF, unsafe file writes
- Concurrency: races, locks, shared mutable state, async blocking
- Data correctness: parsing, serialization, schema drift, migrations
- Observability: logs, metrics, missing context on errors
- Performance: N+1 IO, repeated allocations, needless cloning
- API/UX: breaking changes, confusing defaults, footguns
- Tests: unit/integration coverage, regression tests for fixed bugs
Output Format
- Findings first (bulleted), then open questions, then (optional) change summary.
- If there are no findings, say so and note residual risks.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 36 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 9d3d9b5b2f40
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository 0xNyk/oneclaw (3 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 381 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 skills, from other repositories
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
python-repl
Interactive Python REPL automation with common helpers and best practices.
hypotheses
Turns a research direction into testable hypotheses with predictions, competing explanations and the experiments that discriminate between them, including the design (controls, randomization, blocking), sample size or seed count, the pre-specified analysis, and the result that would falsify each hypothesis. Use when a…
crit-cli
Use when an agent needs to author or reply to crit inline comments programmatically (including multi-agent workflows commenting on shared code/plans/docs/proposals), publish or unpublish a crit review with crit share, sync a crit review to or from a GitHub PR or GitLab MR, or read/interpret a crit review JSON file.…
crit
Review code changes, a plan, a live page (running dev server), or a local HTML file with Crit inline comments and structured human feedback. Use only when the user explicitly invokes /crit or directly asks to use Crit; a generic review request does not count.