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 arch3rPro/dsh-skills --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arch3rPro/dsh-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/arch3rpro/dsh-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arch3rpro/dsh-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arch3rpro/dsh-skills/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/arch3rpro/dsh-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arch3rpro/dsh-skills/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 | $0.00086 | $0.01095 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00438 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00219 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00110 |
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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
A two-axis review of the diff between a fixed point and the current head:
- Standards — does the code conform to the repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?
Run both axes as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then aggregate. This is guidance, not a complete checklist — verify the live base and head before reviewing, and read enough surrounding code to understand the design.
The defining constraint: prioritize correctness, lifecycle, security, and broken required behavior over style. A short review with one substantiated blocker is better than a list of nits.
Why two axes
A change can pass one axis and fail the other:
- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → Standards pass, Spec fail.
- Code that does exactly what the issue asked but breaks the project's conventions → Spec pass, Standards fail.
Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other. Do not merge or rerank findings across axes.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point and the spec source
Capture the diff against the merge-base of the supplied fixed point (commit, branch, tag). Find the originating spec in order: issue references in commit messages → a path the user passed → a spec file under the repo's docs/specs directory. If there is no spec, the Spec axis reports "no spec available" and skips.
2. Identify the standards sources
Anything the repo documents about how code should be written (a CODING_STANDARDS.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, AGENTS.md). On top of that, always carry the smell baseline below, which applies even when the repo documents nothing:
- The repo overrides. A documented repo standard wins; where it endorses something the baseline flags, suppress the smell.
- Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic, never a hard violation; skip anything tooling already enforces.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 65 lines · 86 tokens per session scan A fcfdcaad9ed6
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository arch3rPro/dsh-skills (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 86 tokens to every session and 1,095 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
suede-code
Use when explicitly asked "review this PR" or to grade a diff, branch, or commit range. Suede AI returns evidence-backed P0-P3 findings, fix paths and an A-F ship grade; supports findings-only, grade-only and fix modes, seven review lanes, security checks, deploy safety and commit dirt. NOT FOR: automatic CI…
review-arch
Conduct a principal-level architecture review of a system, specification, diagram, or set of design decisions. Use when asked to review an architecture, evaluate a design, assess coupling/cohesion, check for anti-patterns, audit system boundaries, or produce an Architecture Review Board (ARB) style verdict. Also use…
review-impl
Review implementation changes for a given task against architectural standards. Use when reviewing a PR, evaluating recently committed code, assessing whether implementation changes are correct and architecturally sound, or when asked to 'review my changes', 'check this implementation', 'review what I built', 'is this…
python-anti-patterns
Common Python anti-patterns and a pre-merge review checklist.
address-review
Work through review findings on a PR one at a time.
babysit-pr
Resolve reviewer comments on a pull request or pasted feedback using a six-step evidence-grounded protocol. Use when asked to resolve review feedback, address reviewer comments, process PR comments, triage review feedback, apply review suggestions, handle code review feedback, decide which review comments to accept or…