jolt: Skill for Claude Code

.claude/skills/ci-code-review/SKILL.md

ci-code-review is a skill for Claude Code from a16z/jolt. It costs 129 tokens per session (1,844 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A pull-request review that checks code for bugs, security problems, inconsistent use of new code, technical debt, and design concerns.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review changes before merging a pull request, check new abstractions, and identify risks in error handling, unsafe code, and security-sensitive operations.
Why use it?
It helps catch problems that a quick diff review can miss by examining the surrounding code and how new functions or types are used.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: installed under .claude/.

This is a16z/jolt's own configuration. It tells Claude Code how to work on jolt itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything jolt configures →

About the project

Jolt is a zero-knowledge virtual machine for RISC-V that enables programs to be executed and cryptographically proven. It is for developers and contributors working with zero-knowledge proofs and virtual machines, while the catalogue entries provide instructions and skills for using or developing Jolt.

a16z/jolt · 1,059 stars · on GitHub · jolt.a16zcrypto.com

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to a16z/jolt. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/a16z/jolt/main/.claude/skills/ci-code-review/SKILL.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/a16z/jolt

Made for: Claude Code.

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 ci-code-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/a16z/jolt/ci-code-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/a16z/jolt/ci-code-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/a16z/jolt/ci-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/a16z/jolt/ci-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for ci-code-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/a16z/jolt/ci-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/a16z/jolt/ci-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 129 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,844 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
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 5.1 $0.00129 $0.01844
Opus 5.5 $0.00052 $0.00738
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00026 $0.00369
Haiku 4.5 $0.00013 $0.00184

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 07413ac46dd4, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

ci-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.

.claude/skills/ci-code-review/SKILL.md · 141 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Provide a code review for the given pull request.

Follow these steps:

  1. Eligibility Check (Sonnet): Check if the PR (a) is closed, (b) is automated/trivial. If so, stop.

  2. PR Analysis (Fable): View the PR and return:

    • Summary of the change and its purpose
    • List of new functions, types, enums, or abstractions introduced
    • For each new abstraction: its name, stated purpose (from comments/docs), and intended usage contract
  3. Parallel Deep Review (4 Fable agents):

    Pass the PR summary and new abstractions list to each agent.

    a. Semantic Consistency Agent: For each new function/type/enum introduced:

    • Read its definition, documentation, and any comments describing when/how it should be used
    • Find ALL usages of that abstraction within the PR
    • Verify each usage matches the documented intent
    • Flag misuse: e.g., error-handling functions called for wrong error types, validation functions bypassed, enums used inconsistently
    • Pay special attention to: panic/error functions (when should they trigger?), unsafe blocks, security-sensitive operations

    b. Deep Bug Analysis Agent: Read the full context of modified files (not just diff lines).

    • Understand the data flow and control flow around changes
    • Check for logic errors, edge cases, off-by-one errors, resource leaks
    • Verify error handling is appropriate for each failure mode
    • Check that invariants are maintained across the changes

    c. Tech Debt Removal Agent:

    • Understand new abstractions that are introduced, new functions/types/enums
    • Identify possible future usecases for these things and understand whether abstractions meet future requirements
    • See which paradigms of Rust (or other language) development are used and whether they apply here
    • Identify possible improvements that would benefit long term maintainability of the code
    • Be an enjoyer of abstractions: generics, traits, dyn, enums, etc.

    d. Security Reviewer Agent:

    • Identify whether changes to the protocol do not break soundness
    • Identify possible attack vectors that are introduced with these changes
    • Check for input validation gaps at trust boundaries (user input, network data, file I/O, IPC)
    • Verify authentication/authorization checks are not bypassed or weakened
    • Look for injection risks: SQL, command, path traversal, template injection, deserialization
    • Check cryptographic usage: hardcoded secrets, weak algorithms, nonce reuse, timing side-channels
    • Verify resource limits: unbounded allocations, missing timeouts, denial-of-service vectors
    • Check concurrency: TOCTOU races, lock ordering, shared mutable state without synchronization
  4. Validate Issues (MANDATORY — do not skip):

    After collecting all issues from the 4 agents, validate every issue scored >= 50.

    For each issue from the agents:

    • For complex logic/semantic issues, reason through whether the bug is real and exploitable.
    • For mechanically checkable issues, inspect existing tests and CI results; do not run builds or tests unless the user explicitly requests them.

    Score each issue 0-100 AFTER validation:

    • 0: False positive, doesn't stand up to scrutiny, or pre-existing issue
    • 25: Might be real, but couldn't verify. Stylistic issues without explicit guidance.
    • 50: Verified real issue, but minor/nitpick. Not important relative to PR scope.
    • 75: Verified real issue that will impact functionality. Insufficient existing approach.
    • 100: Confirmed real issue that will happen frequently. Direct evidence confirms it.
  5. Post comments to PR: Always post a single review to the PR so the author has confirmation that the review ran, regardless of whether issues were found.

    • When there are validated issues with score >= 50, include them in the comments array.
    • When there are none, post the review with an empty comments array and a body that briefly states no issues were found (1-2 sentences, same tone as the comment guidelines below — concise, senior-engineer voice, no scores/severity labels/ceremony).

Read the full file on GitHub · 141 lines

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. 1mo ago Changed 07413ac46dd4
  2. 2mo ago First seen · 141 lines · 129 tokens per session scan A 677454d1c6b1

Subscribe to this mod's changes

ci-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository a16z/jolt (1,059 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 129 tokens to every session and 1,844 once invoked, about $0.0005 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.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

implementing-zero-knowledge-proof-for-authentication

Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) allow a prover to demonstrate knowledge of a secret (such as a password or private key) without revealing the secret itself. This skill implements the Schnorr identificati.

xalgorix/xalgorix · 53 tokens

zero-knowledge-proofs

Use this skill when the user says 'ZK circuit', 'Circom', 'zk-SNARK', 'Groth16', 'PLONK', 'trusted setup', 'ptau', 'privacy-preserving proof'. Covers writing arithmetic circuits (Circom), choosing a proving system, and the trusted-setup lifecycle. Do NOT use for: full ZK domain reference (use…

j4flmao/agent-skills · 114 tokens

flounder

Operates Flounder, an autonomous white-hat security auditor. Use when a user asks for a security audit, bug-bounty review, vulnerability investigation, or exploit proof for a public-source or authorized repository, source tree, package, smart contract, Solidity/EVM project, ZK or proof-system code, deployed address…

adshao/flounder · 202 tokens

zkp-toolkit

Zero-Knowledge Proof utilities - proof generation, verification, selective disclosure, ZK-Rollup batching, and benchmarking across ZK systems.

chainlesschain/chainlesschain · 33 tokens

release-pr-review

Review pass on an open release PR (release/ → main) — the step between git-wrapup and release-and-publish when a project releases in gated release PR mode. Reads the PR's commit range through the code-simplifier lens plus a correctness review, verifies whatever an automated reviewer left on the PR, lands fixes as…

cyanheads/toolkit-mcp-server · 136 tokens

code-simplifier

Cleanup pass that edits the working tree — over a session's uncommitted changes, or a named path or whole codebase. Reads git diff (or the named target) and simplifies, consolidates, and aligns code with the existing codebase — modernize syntax, cut unnecessary complexity and slop, consolidate duplicated logic, catch…

cyanheads/toolkit-mcp-server · 160 tokens