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/golembot --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/0xranx/golembotWrote 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/golembot/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/0xranx/golembot/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0xranx/golembot/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/0xranx/golembot/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/0xranx/golembot/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00051 | $0.00431 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00172 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00086 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00043 |
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 Skill
Review submitted code changes across multiple quality dimensions and produce an actionable report.
Review Dimensions
- Correctness — Is the logic correct? Are edge cases handled?
- Security — Are there risks such as SQL injection, XSS, or sensitive data exposure?
- Performance — Are there unnecessary loops, memory leaks, or N+1 queries?
- Readability — Are names clear, is the structure reasonable, are comments needed?
- 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
- The user provides code changes (diff, files, or pull request description)
- Review file by file across all dimensions
- Output the review report to the
reviews/directory - 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
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 · 51 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 4b735ccba7ad
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository 0xranx/golembot (323 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 431 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
refactor
Guides a refactor, cleanup, or restructure with the right decomposition. Use when the user asks to refactor, simplify, extract, or modernize code.
pre-publish-review
Nuclear-grade 12-agent pre-publish release gate. Runs /get-unpublished-changes to detect all changes since last npm release, spawns up to 10 ultrabrain agents for deep per-change analysis, invokes /review-work (orchestrator manual QA plus one gate reviewer) for holistic review, and 1 oracle for overall release…
work-with-pr
Full PR lifecycle in a fresh task-owned git worktree: implement via the ulw-loop skill with mandatory evidence-bound manual QA → reviewer-readable English PR → verification loop (CI + Cubic, where Cubic is skipped only when its quota is exhausted) → merge by default → worktree cleanup. Decomposes one task into the…
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
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…