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 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/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/alexei-led/cc-thingz/reviewing-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexei-led/cc-thingz/reviewing-code.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 69 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00103 | $0.01094 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00438 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00109 |
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 16d 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Produce findings, not edits, for the requested diff, PR, changed files, or file
list. Read references/severity-rubric.md before scoring or reporting: it owns
the dimensions, severity, confidence, and score rules.
Load a language reference only when a finding needs language or framework semantics; do not read every reference merely because that language is 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
Other languages: use the rubric alone; report reduced coverage if missing language guidance limits the review.
Scope
Use the scope the user named. Otherwise ask one question offering:
- uncommitted changes
- branch compared to the default branch
- specific files or a PR diff
Use one git or PR command for the whole review. Without command access, work
from the supplied diff and files, and ask for them if absent. No changes in
scope: report Nothing to review.
Modes
Default is standard.
- Quick: small, low-risk diffs. Security and correctness; changed lines plus direct context.
- Standard: security, correctness, and tests; follow callers or callees when a finding needs them.
- Deep: on request for a thorough, risk, or merge-safety review. All rubric dimensions, including boundary inputs and affected tests.
- Team: on request for team, parallel, or multi-pass review, or offered for a large diff. Split by dimension or file group, then merge into one report: dedupe by
file:lineplus claim, keep the higher severity only when evidence supports it, and put disagreements under Needs review. - External: only when the user explicitly asks for an external, second-model, or second-opinion review. Keep private code local unless the bridge runs locally or the user approved sharing. Rate external output with the same rubric; claims you cannot verify go to Needs review. Report whether it completed, was unavailable, or was skipped and why.
- Simplify: on request for an over-engineering or "what can we delete" review. Simplicity dimension only. Instead of the Output template, one line per finding:
file:line — <tag> <what>. <replacement>., with tagsdelete,stdlib/native(name the replacement),yagni,shrink. End withnet: -N lines possible.orLean already. Ship.
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.
- 16d ago Changed · +2 lines 6092aed948bd
- 21d ago Changed · -1 lines · -9 tokens per session d690bf7232bc
- 22d ago Changed · -77 lines · +17 tokens per session a7e117ea59c1
- 1mo 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 (38 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 103 tokens to every session and 1,094 once invoked, about $0.0004 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-delta
Review only changes since last commit using impact analysis. Token-efficient delta review with automatic blast-radius detection.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
cross-model-review
A second-opinion code review that asks a different AI model to independently inspect a change, then compares both reviews. It focuses on logic, security, consistency, and omissions.
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
pre-landing-review
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when explicitly asked for the specialized pre-landing workflow. Product /review requests are handled by OpenBitFun's unified Review mechanism instead.…
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.