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 0xranx/agentbrief --skill review-processgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/0xranx/agentbriefWrote 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/0xranx/agentbrief/review-process)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/0xranx/agentbrief/review-process"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0xranx/agentbrief/review-process/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/0xranx/agentbrief/review-process"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0xranx/agentbrief/review-process.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 | $0.00012 | $0.00348 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00139 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00070 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
review-process 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 2mo 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 Process
Step-by-Step Review Workflow
1. Understand Context
- Read the PR description and linked issues
- Understand what problem is being solved and why
- Check if the approach was discussed beforehand (design doc, RFC, issue thread)
2. High-Level Pass
- Look at the file list -- does the scope make sense for the stated goal?
- Check for unrelated changes mixed in (should be separate PRs)
- Review the overall architecture: does the approach fit the codebase patterns?
3. Detailed Review
- Walk through the code in logical order (not file order)
- Start from the entry point and follow the data flow
- For each change, evaluate against the review dimensions (correctness, architecture, naming, tests, errors, security)
- Note findings with severity, location, issue, and suggestion
4. Test Review
- Are the right things being tested?
- Do tests cover both happy path and error paths?
- Are tests testing behavior (what), not implementation (how)?
- Would the tests catch a regression if someone changed the implementation?
5. Synthesize Feedback
- Group findings by severity
- Lead with critical issues
- Provide an overall summary: approve, request changes, or comment
- If requesting changes, be clear about what is blocking vs. what is optional
6. Follow-Up
- Re-review addressed feedback promptly
- Verify fixes actually resolve the issue (not just superficially)
- Approve once blocking issues are resolved -- do not add new non-blocking feedback on re-review
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 42 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A daf30bad1931
review-process is a skill published in the GitHub repository 0xranx/agentbrief (45 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 348 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 skills, from other repositories
karpathy-guidelines
A set of coding guidelines based on observations about common mistakes made by language models. It emphasizes simple solutions, small targeted edits, clear assumptions, and checkable results.
requesting-code-review
A procedure for asking another coding agent to inspect completed changes before they are merged. Code review means checking whether the implementation meets its requirements and finding defects.
receiving-code-review
A guide for evaluating code-review feedback against the actual codebase before changing the implementation.
open-code-review
Performs AI-powered code review on Git changes using the ocr CLI from alibaba/open-code-review. Use when the user asks to review code, review a pull request, review staged/unstaged changes, review a commit, or compare branches for code quality issues. Produces line-level review comments and can automatically apply…
knowledge-org
A guide to organising large bodies of knowledge so an AI system can navigate relationships, summaries, and layers instead of searching only flat text chunks. It covers tree indexes, knowledge graphs, file-like structures, incremental updates, and long-term memory layouts.
writing
A writing guide for turning verified facts and calculations into finished text for a specific audience. It follows the requested language, structure, and length.