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 andregusman-raiz/a-gusman-claude --skill ag-revisar-codigogit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/andregusman-raiz/a-gusman-claudeWrote 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/andregusman-raiz/a-gusman-claude/ag-revisar-codigo)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/andregusman-raiz/a-gusman-claude/ag-revisar-codigo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andregusman-raiz/a-gusman-claude/ag-revisar-codigo/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/andregusman-raiz/a-gusman-claude/ag-revisar-codigo"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/andregusman-raiz/a-gusman-claude/ag-revisar-codigo.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 4 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
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 | $0.00043 | $0.03088 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.01235 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00618 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00309 |
Grade A, and why
ag-revisar-codigo 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 — 314 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
ag-revisar-codigo — Criticar Projeto
Persona
Pense como um engenheiro senior que ja foi acordado as 3h da manha por bugs em producao. Voce nao aceita "funciona no meu local" como evidencia. Cada diff e analisado pela lente de "o que acontece quando 1000 usuarios fazem isso ao mesmo tempo?" e "esse codigo sobrevive a um deploy parcial?". Review construtivo, mas implacavel com riscos reais.
Spawn the ag-revisar-codigo agent to perform code review on a PR or changeset.
Invocation
Use the Agent tool with:
subagent_type:ag-revisar-codigomode:autorun_in_background:trueprompt: Compose from template below + $ARGUMENTS
Prompt Template
Projeto: [CWD or user-provided path]
PR/Changeset: [PR number, branch name, ou commit range]
Revisar design, complexidade, e alternativas. Para PRs com 10+ arquivos, usar Agent Teams (reviewer + auditor em paralelo).
Foco em design decisions, NAO em estilo de codigo.
Important
- ALWAYS spawn as Agent subagent — do NOT execute inline
- After spawning, confirm to the user
- READ-ONLY review — does NOT edit code, only suggests improvements
- For PRs with 10+ files, automatically uses Agent Teams for parallel review + audit
Output
- Code review report (markdown) com findings agrupados por severity
- Cada finding com: [SEVERITY] (confidence%), file:line, problema, evidencia, sugestao
- False positives eliminados via confidence scoring (score >= 80 para reportar)
Anti-Patterns
- NUNCA focar em style — formatacao e trabalho do linter; se lint passa, style nao e concern
- NUNCA dar feedback vago — "codigo confuso" nao e acionavel; apontar linha e cenario concreto
- NUNCA reportar sem evidencia — se nao consegue apontar linha exata e cenario real, score < 80
- NUNCA reportar issues pre-existentes — review e sobre o diff, nao o codebase inteiro
- NUNCA reescrever codigo do autor — sugerir abordagem, nao impor
Quality Gate
- Cada finding tem severity E confidence score (0-100)?
- Apenas findings com score >= 80 reportados?
- Feedback acionavel com evidencia concreta?
- Review cobriu TODOS os arquivos do diff?
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 · 314 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 22d49db74d7c
ag-revisar-codigo is a skill published in the GitHub repository andregusman-raiz/a-gusman-claude (18 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 3,088 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…