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 andr-ca/agentharness --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/andr-ca/agentharnessWrote 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/andr-ca/agentharness/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/andr-ca/agentharness/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andr-ca/agentharness/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/andr-ca/agentharness/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andr-ca/agentharness/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 | $0.00056 | $0.04861 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.01944 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00972 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00486 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 290 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
A systematic approach to reviewing diffs and pull requests. Work through the categories below in order — correctness first, style last.
Pre-read checklist
Before reading the diff:
- Read the PR description. Does it explain why the change is needed? If the description is missing or just "fixes stuff", ask for one before reviewing — the diff alone won't tell you whether the approach is right.
- Check the linked issue or ticket if there is one.
- Note the rigor tier (
patterns/profiles/or.agentharness-profile) — the coverage and testing requirements differ.
1. Correctness
The most important category. Ask: "Can this code produce wrong results?"
- Does the logic match the stated goal?
- Are there off-by-one errors, wrong comparisons, or incorrect assumptions about the data?
- Are all inputs validated before use?
- Are edge cases handled: empty collections, zero, null/None/undefined, negative numbers, max values, concurrent access?
- Does error handling actually handle the error, or does it swallow it silently?
- Are exceptions caught at the right level (not too broad, not too narrow)?
- Are resources (files, connections, locks) released even on exception?
# Swallowed error — caller sees success, wrong data silently used
try:
value = parse_config(raw)
except Exception:
pass # WRONG: value is now unset or stale
# RIGHT: propagate or at minimum log + re-raise
try:
value = parse_config(raw)
except ConfigError as e:
logger.error("config parse failed", error=e)
raise
2. Security
Run through the relevant items from the security-review skill (load it
for the full checklist). The most common PR-level findings:
- Secrets or API keys hardcoded or logged.
- SQL/shell/HTML built via string formatting with user input.
- Missing ownership/permission checks on resource access.
- New dependency with known CVEs (
npm audit/pip-auditnot run).
3. Test coverage
At Production tier, new code must have tests. Check:
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 · 290 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A d2343eb00aba
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository andr-ca/agentharness (1 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 4,861 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
critique-theater
Five-dimension design quality review — score the artifact against craft, brand, accessibility, and copy, then fix what falls short before handing it over.
code-refiner
Deep code simplification and refactoring preserving behavior across Python, Go, TypeScript, Rust. Targets complexity, anti-patterns, readability debt. Triggers on: "simplify this code", "refactor for clarity", "reduce complexity", "make this more readable", "tech debt cleanup", "too much nesting".
package-optimizer
Evaluate one existing package or bounded package family from recorded evaluator evidence and a capability profile, then propose retain, simplify, strengthen, retire, or inconclusive without editing. Use when optimizing a skill, agent, hook, rule, command, utility, or preset; evaluating whether package detail is…
review-skill
Review a proposed Agent Skill for structural validity and content quality before publishing. Runs the skill-validator CLI to check for structural issues, scores the skill with an LLM judge, and interprets results to advise authors on what to address. Use when a user wants to review, validate, or quality-check an Agent…
false-positive-gate
Use when you have a candidate security finding and before it goes in a comment - restate it as a crossed boundary, prove reachability, impact and a concrete exploit, apply triage dismissals, route out-of-repository facts to needs-validation, keep the effect no stronger than the trace, then the self-refute and verifier…
security-diff-review-method
Use when starting any security review in codereview - risk-tier each changed file, read the repo's own security patterns, compare, then trace source to sink, including removed guards and blast radius.