code-review

code-review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from 0xranx/golembot. It costs 51 tokens per session (431 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A code-change reviewer that examines pull requests, diffs, and code snippets for bugs, security problems, slow or wasteful code, readability, and consistency with the project.

In plain words
What is it for?
Reviewing pull requests, recent changes, or code snippets, with comments that can include the file, line, problem, severity, and suggested fix.
Why use it?
It gives a structured second check before code is merged. It highlights the most serious issues first and explains how to fix each one.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/0xranx/golembot/code-review
Any agent
npx skills add 0xranx/golembot --skill code-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/0xranx/golembot

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for code-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0xranx/golembot/code-review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/0xranx/golembot/code-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/0xranx/golembot/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0xranx/golembot/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 51 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 431 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00051 $0.00431
Opus 5 $0.00026 $0.00216
Sonnet 5 $0.00010 $0.00086
Haiku 4.5 $0.00005 $0.00043

Measured 4d ago against content hash 4b735ccba7ad, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 4d 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.

templates/code-reviewer/skills/code-review/SKILL.md · 51 lines

What it actually says

Code Review Skill

Review submitted code changes across multiple quality dimensions and produce an actionable report.

Review Dimensions

  1. Correctness — Is the logic correct? Are edge cases handled?
  2. Security — Are there risks such as SQL injection, XSS, or sensitive data exposure?
  3. Performance — Are there unnecessary loops, memory leaks, or N+1 queries?
  4. Readability — Are names clear, is the structure reasonable, are comments needed?
  5. Consistency — Does it follow the project's existing coding style?

Output Format

Review results are categorized by severity:

  • Must Fix — Bug or security vulnerability
  • Should Fix — Performance or readability issue
  • Nice to Have — Optional improvement suggestion

Each review comment includes: file path, line number (if determinable), issue description, and suggested fix.

Example Review Comment

**Must Fix** — src/auth/login.ts:42
Issue: User-supplied `redirectUrl` is passed to `res.redirect()` without validation, enabling an open-redirect attack.
Suggested fix:
  const allowed = ['/', '/dashboard', '/settings'];
  const target = allowed.includes(redirectUrl) ? redirectUrl : '/';
  res.redirect(target);

Workflow

  1. The user provides code changes (diff, files, or pull request description)
  2. Review file by file across all dimensions
  3. Output the review report to the reviews/ directory
  4. Summarize: approved / changes requested / blocked

Behavioral Guidelines

  • When pointing out an issue, provide a solution — don't just criticize
  • Give positive feedback for well-written code
  • Don't nitpick style debates (e.g., indentation, brace placement) unless they violate project conventions
Changes

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.

  1. 4d ago First seen · 51 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 4b735ccba7ad

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository 0xranx/golembot (320 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 431 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

karpathy-guidelines

Tool-agnostic behavioral guidelines for AI coding assistants. Use when writing, reviewing, debugging, or refactoring code to reduce overengineering, surface ambiguity, make surgical changes, and define verifiable success criteria.

Vincent-A-Yang/karpathy-skills-anycoding · 47 tokens

review-work

Post-implementation review orchestrator. Launches 5 parallel background sub-agents: Oracle (goal/constraint verification), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (hands-on QA execution), unspecified-high (context mining from GitHub/git/Slack/Notion). All must pass for review to pass. MUST USE…

code-yeongyu/oh-my-openagent · 125 tokens

ulw-execute

Execute a Prometheus work plan with Boulder state, evidence ledger updates, worktree discipline, parallel subagents, and Stop-hook continuation. Use after planning when the user says ulw-execute, execute plan, continue plan, resume plan, or asks to run a .omo/plans plan.

code-yeongyu/oh-my-openagent · 64 tokens

visual-qa

MUST USE after building/changing any UI or when asked whether a page, component, or TUI looks right. Rigorous visual QA across web/page, terminal, and paginated-document surfaces. Prefer browser:control-in-app-browser for unauthenticated browser/page QA in Codex, then Playwright/agent-browser/dev-browser. Captures…

code-yeongyu/oh-my-openagent · 161 tokens

frontend

MUST USE for frontend/web UI/UX/visual work: building, styling, redesigning pages/components, React setup, performance audits, visual QA, taste, and polish. Routes four rulesets: design taste router and brand references; perfection for Playwright/Chromium Lighthouse/Core Web Vitals; ui-ux-db palettes/fonts/guidelines…

code-yeongyu/oh-my-openagent · 183 tokens

tech-debt-audit

Thorough, file-cited technical debt audit across 9 dimensions using AST-grep (tree-sitter), grep, LSP, and language-native tooling. Produces TECHDEBTAUDIT.md with severity, effort estimates, and prioritized fixes. Use when asked for codebase health check, tech debt audit, architecture review, code quality assessment…

code-yeongyu/oh-my-openagent · 127 tokens