Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to abhinavteja123/codemore. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/abhinavteja123/codemore/main/.agents/skills/caveman-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/abhinavteja123/codemoreWrote 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/abhinavteja123/codemore/caveman-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/abhinavteja123/codemore/caveman-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/abhinavteja123/codemore/caveman-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/abhinavteja123/codemore/caveman-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/abhinavteja123/codemore/caveman-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 | $0.00072 | $0.00670 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00268 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
caveman-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.
This is a copy
92% identical to caveman-review — 6 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.
Rules
Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. — or <file>:L<line>: ... when reviewing multi-file diffs.
Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):
🔴 bug:— broken behavior, will cause incident🟡 risk:— works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)🔵 nit:— style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore❓ q:— genuine question, not a suggestion
Drop:
- "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."
- "This is just a suggestion but..." — use
nit:instead - "Great work!", "Looks good overall but..." — say it once at the top, not per comment
- Restating what the line does — the reviewer can read the diff
- Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe", "I think") — if unsure use
q:
Keep:
- Exact line numbers
- Exact symbol/function/variable names in backticks
- Concrete fix, not "consider refactoring this"
- The why if the fix isn't obvious from the problem statement
Examples
❌ "I noticed that on line 42 you're not checking if the user object is null before accessing the email property. This could potentially cause a crash if the user is not found in the database. You might want to add a null check here."
✅ L42: 🔴 bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.
❌ "It looks like this function is doing a lot of things and might benefit from being broken up into smaller functions for readability."
✅ L88-140: 🔵 nit: 50-line fn does 4 things. Extract validate/normalize/persist.
❌ "Have you considered what happens if the API returns a 429? I think we should probably handle that case."
✅ L23: 🟡 risk: no retry on 429. Wrap in withBackoff(3).
Auto-Clarity
Drop terse mode for: security findings (CVE-class bugs need full explanation + reference), architectural disagreements (need rationale, not just a one-liner), and onboarding contexts where the author is new and needs the "why". In those cases write a normal paragraph, then resume terse for the rest.
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 · 55 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 9ef09065f26b
caveman-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository abhinavteja123/codemore (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 670 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to caveman-review, differing in 6 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
skill
The HefestoAI agent skill moved to skills/hefestoai/ (name: hefestoai, following the Agent Skills specification). Its reference docs (commands.md, issuetypes.md, integration.md, semanticdrift.md, reliabilitydrift.md and analysis/) moved with it.
ai-debt-audit
Scan a repository for AI-generated technical, cognitive, and intent debt. Use when the user asks to audit a codebase for AI/vibe-coding risk, check for issues an AI coding assistant may have introduced (disabled RLS, hardcoded secrets, missing auth checks, SSTI, debug mode left on), assess technical debt after heavy…
open-code-review-scan
AI code quality gate that detects hallucinated imports, phantom packages, stale APIs, and AI-specific code defects. Use when the user asks to scan code, review code quality, check for AI-generated bugs, audit imports, find phantom dependencies, or run a code quality gate. Supports TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Java…
pr-review-triage
Watch open PRs, check CI status, review staleness, merge conflicts, and unanswered review comments. Produces a prioritized watchlist.
new-skill
Scaffold a new brooks-lint analysis skill so it passes npm run validate and npm run evals on the first try — generates skills/{name}/SKILL.md (with the mandatory "Do NOT trigger for:" clause and a Process section citing guide step ranges) plus skills/{name}/{name}-guide.md (sequentially numbered steps), then appends…
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…