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 alexmond/alexmskills --skill reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alexmond/alexmskillsWrote 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/alexmond/alexmskills/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alexmond/alexmskills/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexmond/alexmskills/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/alexmond/alexmskills/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexmond/alexmskills/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 | $0.00073 | $0.00309 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00154 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00062 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00031 |
Grade A, and why
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 10d 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
Understand & refactor a codebase
Target: $ARGUMENTS
- Load the role. If
.claude/roles/reviewer.mdexists, read it — it is the canonical, evolving copy. If not, read role.md (the seed shipped with this skill), copy it verbatim to.claude/roles/reviewer.md, then proceed. - Apply it. Adopt the Charter and Body; honor every entry under
## Learnings (core)and## Learnings (solo). - Work the target following the Body's method and deliverables.
- Capture a learning. If this run surfaced a durable, reusable lesson (a fix that took more than one cycle, a stack- or repo-specific gotcha, a stated user preference), append one line under
## Learnings (solo)in.claude/roles/reviewer.md:- YYYY-MM-DD — <one sentence>. Don't log routine one-pass outcomes.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 16 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 04eeaea90329
reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository alexmond/alexmskills (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 309 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
frontend-code-review
Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., .tsx, .ts, .js). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.
review-implementing
Process and implement code review feedback systematically. Use when user provides reviewer comments, PR feedback, code review notes, or asks to implement suggestions from reviews.
code-auditor
Performs comprehensive codebase analysis covering architecture, code quality, security, performance, testing, and maintainability. Use when user wants to audit code quality, identify technical debt, find security issues, assess test coverage, or get a codebase health check.
observability-audit
Audit code for observability gaps — debug logs left in, errors caught without being logged, missing context on log entries, untracked slow operations. Uses the app's existing observability tooling exclusively.