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 agentmods add skills/alexei-led/cc-thingz/reviewing-codenpx skills add alexei-led/cc-thingz --skill reviewing-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alexei-led/cc-thingzWrote 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/alexei-led/cc-thingz/reviewing-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alexei-led/cc-thingz/reviewing-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexei-led/cc-thingz/reviewing-code.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00095 | $0.01588 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00794 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00318 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00159 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-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 5d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Produce findings, not edits. Review only the requested diff, PR, changed files, or file list. If scope or diff context is missing, ask one clarifying question.
Read first
Read references/severity-rubric.md before scoring or reporting findings.
Load language references only for languages present in scope:
- C#:
references/csharp.md - Go:
references/go.md - Java/Kotlin:
references/java-kotlin.md - Python:
references/python.md - Rust:
references/rust.md - TypeScript:
references/typescript.md - Web, HTML, CSS, JS, HTMX:
references/web.md
Unsupported language: use this skill and the severity rubric only; report reduced coverage.
Review modes
Default mode is standard unless the user asks otherwise.
Quick:
- Use for small, low-risk diffs.
- Cover security and correctness only.
- Review changed lines plus direct local context.
Standard:
- Use for normal reviews.
- Cover security, correctness, and tests.
- Review changed files plus direct callers or callees when needed to validate a finding.
Deep:
- Use when the user asks for deep, thorough, risk, or merge-safety review.
- Cover all dimensions: security, correctness, tests, reliability, performance, maintainability, and docs.
- Review changed files, relevant callers/callees, boundary inputs, and affected tests.
Team:
- Use only when the user asks for team, parallel, multi-agent, or multi-pass review.
- Split by dimension or file group, then consolidate into one report.
- Deduplicate by
file:lineplus claim. Keep the strongest severity only when evidence supports it. - Put unresolved disagreements under Needs review, not confirmed findings.
External:
- Use only when the user explicitly asks for external, Codex, second model, or second opinion.
- Keep private code local unless the configured bridge runs locally or the user approved sharing.
- Consolidate external output with the same severity rubric. Downgrade unsupported external claims to Needs review.
- Report whether external review completed, was unavailable, or was skipped for privacy/tooling reasons.
What ships with it
9 files 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.
- 5d ago First seen · 177 lines · 95 tokens per session scan A afd168998e9a
reviewing-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository alexei-led/cc-thingz (35 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 1,588 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 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
peekaboo
Provides runtime observation and interaction for native macOS interfaces through accessibility state and screenshots. Use when the task depends on visible or interactive state in a running SwiftUI/AppKit app: what is rendered, focused, selected, enabled, reachable through menus/windows/dialogs, or experienced across a…
electron-playwright-validator
This skill should be used when a user asks to launch, inspect, automate, test, validate, or debug an Electron desktop UI through Playwright/CDP, including blank renderers, runtime import failures, accessibility snapshots, layout defects, click-through flows, or post-change checks. Not for native macOS or mobile apps…
mobile-flows-maestro
This skill should be used when Maestro is explicitly requested or already present and the task is to author, run, or debug iOS/Android Maestro flows; use Maestro MCP; or handle Maestro selectors, system UI, permissions, Keychain, JavaScript, waits, device state, flakiness, or CI. Evidence includes a .maestro directory…
seam-probe
This skill should be used when testing or debugging an embedded-runtime boundary exposed through a dynamically loaded C-ABI library or Unix-domain socket, including requests to inspect exports, exercise FFI callbacks, send framed messages, reproduce seam crashes or hangs, fuzz a boundary, or correlate probe output…
validate-mobile
Run a Maestro flow on an explicitly selected iOS or Android device and report behavioral evidence.
validate-api
Run the project's Hurl scenarios with an OIDC access token passed as a secret variable.