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 aigentive/RalphX --skill code-review-checklistgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aigentive/RalphXWrote 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/aigentive/ralphx/code-review-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aigentive/ralphx/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aigentive/ralphx/code-review-checklist/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/aigentive/ralphx/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aigentive/ralphx/code-review-checklist.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 | $0.00011 | $0.00461 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00184 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-checklist 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 Checklist
Correctness
- Code does what it's supposed to do
- Edge cases are handled
- Error handling is appropriate
- No off-by-one errors
- Async operations complete properly
Code Quality
Clarity
- Names are descriptive and consistent
- Functions do one thing
- Complex logic has comments
- No dead code or TODOs
Structure
- Appropriate abstractions
- No deep nesting (max 3 levels)
- Functions under 50 lines
- Files under 150 lines
Patterns
- Follows existing patterns
- No reinvented wheels
- DRY principles applied
Testing
- New code has tests
- Edge cases covered
- Tests are meaningful
- Tests pass reliably
Security
Data Handling
- No hardcoded secrets
- Sensitive data not logged
- Input validated at boundaries
Injection Prevention
- SQL queries use parameters
- Commands sanitize input
- URLs are validated
Authentication
- Auth checks present
- Permissions verified
- Session handling correct
Performance
- No obvious N+1 queries
- Expensive operations cached
- No memory leaks
- Efficient algorithms used
Documentation
- Public APIs documented
- Complex logic explained
- README updated if needed
Review Output
Use this template:
## Decision
- [ ] Approve
- [ ] Needs Changes
- [ ] Escalate to Human
## Findings
### Critical (blocks merge)
- [issue description, file:line]
### Important (should fix)
- [issue description, file:line]
### Minor (nice to have)
- [issue description, file:line]
## Summary
[Brief overall assessment]
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 · 98 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 5becd4d9b801
code-review-checklist is a skill published in the GitHub repository aigentive/RalphX (5 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 461 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…