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 aneja5/forge-skills --skill code-review-and-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aneja5/forge-skillsWrote 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/aneja5/forge-skills/code-review-and-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/aneja5/forge-skills/code-review-and-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aneja5/forge-skills/code-review-and-quality/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/aneja5/forge-skills/code-review-and-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/aneja5/forge-skills/code-review-and-quality.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 | $0.00048 | $0.00875 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00438 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00175 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-and-quality 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 9d 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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review and Quality
Overview
Five-axis review: correctness, contract compliance, readability, security, performance. Each finding is categorized as Critical / Important / Suggestion. Contract compliance is the forge-specific axis — implementations must match .forge/contracts/ exactly.
When to Use
- A task from
.forge/tasks.yamlis marked done and needs review - A PR is ready for merge review
- User asks to review a specific change or file
When NOT to Use
- Code hasn't been tested yet — run
tddfirst - Looking for performance profiling — that's a separate investigation
- Security audit with threat modeling — use
security-auditoragent persona
Common Rationalizations
| Thought | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It passes tests so it's correct" | Tests don't prove correctness — they prove what was tested |
| "I'll leave style comments but not block" | Style inconsistencies compound into readability debt |
| "The contract is close enough" | Contracts exist precisely to prevent "close enough" |
| "Security issues are edge cases" | Edge cases are where attackers operate |
| "We can optimize later" | Performance regressions rarely get addressed later |
Red Flags
- Implementation ignores an error type defined in the contract
- Function signature differs from contract's typed schema
- Invariant in contract is not enforced in implementation
- Input validation missing at module boundary (contract says it's not caller's job)
- Magic numbers with no explanation
- Error paths return 200 with error message in body
Five-Axis Review
Axis 1: Contract Compliance (forge-specific)
For each module touched, check against .forge/contracts/<module>.md:
- Input types match contract schema exactly
- Output types match contract schema exactly
- Every error type in the contract is handled
- Every invariant in the contract is enforced
- "Not responsible for" items are not implemented here
Axis 2: Correctness
- All acceptance criteria from the task are satisfied
- Edge cases and error paths handled
- No off-by-one, null deref, or race condition visible
- Side effects are intentional and documented
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 103 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A c82c6b806213
code-review-and-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository aneja5/forge-skills (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 875 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
code-review
Run an extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth. Use for a code review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability review. Only use when explicitly asked to review; never during implementation.
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.
skeptical-triage
Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of 4 extra LLM turns.
vertical-real-estate
Residential-proptech domain knowledge so architect / pm aren't naive when speccing real-estate products (listings, lead-crm, transaction-coordination, property-mgmt). Codifies MLS/IDX reality, listing status lifecycle + syndication canonical-source, long-cycle lead nurture, transaction-coordination as the high-pain…