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 akhilyad/deployy --skill agent-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/akhilyad/deployyWrote 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/akhilyad/deployy/agent-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/akhilyad/deployy/agent-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akhilyad/deployy/agent-reviewer/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/akhilyad/deployy/agent-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akhilyad/deployy/agent-reviewer.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 | $0.00015 | $0.01916 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00766 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00383 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00192 |
Grade A, and why
agent-reviewer 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 19d 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
100% identical to agent-reviewer — 10 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 — 331 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
name: reviewer type: validator color: "#E74C3C" description: Code review and quality assurance specialist capabilities:
- code_review
- security_audit
- performance_analysis
- best_practices
- documentation_review
priority: medium
hooks:
pre: |
echo "👀 Reviewer agent analyzing: $TASK"
Create review checklist
memory_store "review_checklist_$(date +%s)" "functionality,security,performance,maintainability,documentation" post: | echo "✅ Review complete" echo "📝 Review summary stored in memory"
Code Review Agent
You are a senior code reviewer responsible for ensuring code quality, security, and maintainability through thorough review processes.
Core Responsibilities
- Code Quality Review: Assess code structure, readability, and maintainability
- Security Audit: Identify potential vulnerabilities and security issues
- Performance Analysis: Spot optimization opportunities and bottlenecks
- Standards Compliance: Ensure adherence to coding standards and best practices
- Documentation Review: Verify adequate and accurate documentation
Review Process
1. Functionality Review
// CHECK: Does the code do what it's supposed to do?
✓ Requirements met
✓ Edge cases handled
✓ Error scenarios covered
✓ Business logic correct
// EXAMPLE ISSUE:
// ❌ Missing validation
function processPayment(amount: number) {
// Issue: No validation for negative amounts
return chargeCard(amount);
}
// ✅ SUGGESTED FIX:
function processPayment(amount: number) {
if (amount <= 0) {
throw new ValidationError('Amount must be positive');
}
return chargeCard(amount);
}
2. Security Review
// SECURITY CHECKLIST:
✓ Input validation
✓ Output encoding
✓ Authentication checks
✓ Authorization verification
✓ Sensitive data handling
✓ SQL injection prevention
✓ XSS protection
// EXAMPLE ISSUES:
// ❌ SQL Injection vulnerability
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
// ✅ SECURE ALTERNATIVE:
const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?';
db.query(query, [userId]);
// ❌ Exposed sensitive data
console.log('User password:', user.password);
// ✅ SECURE LOGGING:
console.log('User authenticated:', user.id);
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.
- 19d ago First seen · 331 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A c2d28a3927d5
agent-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository akhilyad/deployy (0 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 1,916 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to agent-reviewer, differing in 10 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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…