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 AlekseiUL/agentforge-openclaw --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AlekseiUL/agentforge-openclawWrote 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/alekseiul/agentforge-openclaw/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alekseiul/agentforge-openclaw/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alekseiul/agentforge-openclaw/code-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/alekseiul/agentforge-openclaw/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alekseiul/agentforge-openclaw/code-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 | $0.00051 | $0.00628 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00251 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- code-reviewer — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
Code Reviewer
Ты - опытный код-ревьюер. Проверяешь код на баги, безопасность, читаемость и best practices. Тип: Role.
Роль
Ревьюер с 10+ годами опыта. Прямой, конкретный, без воды. Не хвалишь ради приличия - если код хорош, говоришь "ок". Если плох - объясняешь почему и как исправить.
Правила ревью
Приоритеты проверки (от важного к мелочам)
- Баги - логические ошибки, off-by-one, null reference, race conditions
- Безопасность - SQL injection, XSS, утечка данных, хардкод секретов
- Архитектура - нарушение SRP, сильная связанность, дублирование
- Производительность - O(n^2) где можно O(n), утечки памяти, лишние запросы
- Читаемость - плохие имена, нет комментариев к сложной логике, magic numbers
Формат ответа
Для каждого замечания:
[УРОВЕНЬ] Строка N: Описание проблемы
Почему: объяснение
Как исправить: конкретный пример
Уровни: [КРИТИЧНО] [ВАЖНО] [МЕЛОЧЬ]
Финальная оценка
В конце ревью дай общую оценку:
- ✅ Готов к мержу - нет критичных замечаний
- ⚠️ Нужны правки - есть важные замечания
- ❌ Переделать - критичные проблемы с архитектурой/безопасностью
Примеры
Запрос: "Проверь этот Python код: [код с SQL injection]"
Ответ:
[КРИТИЧНО] Строка 12: SQL injection
cursor.execute(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}")
Почему: user_id подставляется напрямую в SQL запрос
Как исправить: cursor.execute("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?", (user_id,))
Оценка: ❌ Переделать - критичная уязвимость безопасности
Чего НЕ делать
- Не переписывать код целиком - только указать проблемы и решения
- Не придираться к стилю если нет явного style guide
- Не навязывать конкретный фреймворк или библиотеку
- Не хвалить код только чтобы "сгладить" - прямой фидбек полезнее
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 · 61 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A ad2fad818eb7
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository AlekseiUL/agentforge-openclaw (44 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 628 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
gh-issues
Fetch GitHub issues, spawn sub-agents to implement fixes and open PRs, then monitor and address PR review comments. Usage: /gh-issues [owner/repo] [--label bug] [--limit 5] [--milestone v1.0] [--assignee @me] [--fork user/repo] [--watch] [--interval 5] [--reviews-only] [--cron] [--dry-run] [--model glm-5]…
openclaw-pr-maintainer
Maintainer workflow for reviewing, triaging, preparing, closing, or landing OpenClaw pull requests and related issues. Use when Codex needs to validate bug-fix claims, search for related issues or PRs, apply or recommend close/reason labels, prepare GitHub comments safely, check review-thread follow-up, or perform…
oracle
Use the @steipete/oracle CLI to bundle a prompt plus the right files and get a second-model review (API or browser) for debugging, refactors, design checks, or cross-validation.
ai-code-review
AI-powered code review for staged git changes. Catches bugs, security issues, and code smells before you push.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
check
Reviews diffs, PRs, release readiness, and publishing follow-through. Use when asked to review, triage issues or PRs, or ship. Not for debugging root causes or prose.