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 alexeyshishin/as-skill --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alexeyshishin/as-skillWrote 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/alexeyshishin/as-skill/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alexeyshishin/as-skill/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexeyshishin/as-skill/code-review/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/alexeyshishin/as-skill/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexeyshishin/as-skill/code-review.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 | $0.00035 | $0.00271 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00108 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00054 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00027 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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 4d 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
Skill: /code-review
ORCHESTRATOR. One reviewer subagent. Read-only — the reviewer does not fix.
Invocation
/code-review <slug>
Steps
-
Gather: plan
swarm-report/<slug>-plan.md+ build reportswarm-report/<slug>-build.md- the diff (
git difffor staged + unstaged, or vs the branch point).
- the diff (
-
Spawn 1 reviewer (
Task,general-purpose). Prompt:Answer TERSE. Read
.claude/agents/code-reviewer.mdand follow it exactly. Plan: swarm-report/-plan.md Diff below:Paste the diff INTO the prompt — the reviewer must not re-read the whole repo.
-
Report the reviewer's verdict + findings verbatim.
-
If
verdict: rework— the findings ARE the input to a/code-build <slug>retry. Do not auto-fix here; hand them back and let the user decide.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 4d ago Changed 24060fa766f8
- 1mo ago First seen · 25 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 92c7f09aea2f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository alexeyshishin/as-skill (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 271 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
plannotator
Reference for using Plannotator (its plannotator tool when you have one, otherwise the CLI): plan review, code review, annotating files, URLs, folders, and running local apps, annotating the last assistant message, browsing archived plan decisions, exporting or sharing Guided Reviews, and the Plannotator Inbox…
react-patterns
React 19 performance patterns and composition architecture for Vite + Cloudflare projects. 50+ rules ranked by impact — eliminating waterfalls, bundle optimisation, re-render prevention, composition over boolean props, server/client boundaries, and React 19 APIs. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring React…
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…