Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to AlessandroCaforio/Academic-Writing. 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/AlessandroCaforio/Academic-Writing/main/.claude/skills/review-code/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AlessandroCaforio/Academic-WritingWrote 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/alessandrocaforio/academic-writing/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alessandrocaforio/academic-writing/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alessandrocaforio/academic-writing/review-code/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/alessandrocaforio/academic-writing/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alessandrocaforio/academic-writing/review-code.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00185 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00074 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00037 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00018 |
Grade A, and why
review-code 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
Review Code
Review a Python analysis notebook or script. The argument should be the notebook path.
Instructions
- Read the specified notebook/file at the given path
- Read
thesis/chapters/04_methodology.texfor formula reference - Read
.claude/rules/python-conventions.mdfor coding standards - Follow the code-reviewer agent instructions
Example Usage
/review-code analysis/02_task_displacement/labor_share.ipynb/review-code analysis/04_cces_analysis/CCES_automation_analysis.ipynb/review-code src/utils.py
If no argument is provided, review the most recently modified notebook in analysis/.
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 · 26 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 149aaed62e71
review-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository AlessandroCaforio/Academic-Writing (23 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 185 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
review-r
Read-only R code review protocol for .R scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, tidyverse idioms, and professional standards; produces a report without editing. Use when user says "review this R script", "check the R code", "audit the analysis code", "code review on the R", or when an R file…
proofcheck
A systematic checker for mathematical proofs in statistics and machine-learning research papers.
theory-simulation
Bridge between theoretical results and Monte Carlo simulation, built to top-stat-journal standards (AoS, JASA, JRSS-B, Biometrika, Bernoulli). Two modes: (1) DESIGN mode — for each theoretical claim, design new simulations that verify rates, coverage, stress-test assumptions, and reveal theory-improvement…
proof-repair
Generate self-consistent repair plans for mathematical proof issues found by /proofcheck, with literature-backed support. For each problematic assumption, model, proposition, or theorem, proposes fixes that preserve the full dependency chain and searches arXiv, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar for new references…
theory-sharpen
A framework for testing whether a research paper’s theoretical results can be made stronger, such as by using fewer assumptions or proving faster rates. It also checks whether the theory matches the model, experiments, and existing research.
theory-design
Design a coherent theoretical framework for a new statistics / ML theory research topic, paper-type aware. Three modes — Theory paper (explain phenomena or provide new theoretical tools), Methodology paper (propose a new method with theoretical guarantees), Application paper (apply existing methods to scientific data…