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 ArdurAI/ardur-agent --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ArdurAI/ardur-agentWrote 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/ardurai/ardur-agent/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/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/ardurai/ardur-agent/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/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 | $0.00015 | $0.00203 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00081 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00041 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00020 |
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.
What it actually says
Reviewing a change
Read the diff and report concrete, actionable findings. Prefer a few high-confidence issues over a long list of nitpicks.
Check, in order:
- Correctness — off-by-one errors, inverted conditions, unhandled
None/ error paths, resource leaks, race conditions. - Security — unvalidated input, injection, secret handling, unsafe defaults, missing authorization checks.
- Clarity & reuse — duplicated logic, dead code, names that mislead, functions that could reuse an existing helper.
- Tests — does the change ship coverage for its new behavior and edge cases?
For each finding, cite the file and line, state the impact, and propose a fix. Distinguish blocking issues from optional suggestions.
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 · 26 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A f921dc2875c8
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ArdurAI/ardur-agent (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 203 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
review-duo
Review a defined code change with two Thread members independently checking standards, quality and requirements. Applies to the initiator and invited reviewer through the final report; excludes solo review, undefined scope and implementation-only requests.
Read-only review
Review the selected implementation and report correctness, security, and maintainability findings. Do not modify workspace files.
security-audit
Perform a security audit on code, checking for common vulnerabilities including injection, auth bypass, secrets leakage, and unsafe dependencies.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
link-check
Verify @file references in AIWG skills and agents against the linking contract — per-file or corpus-wide, with optional auto-fix.
member-studio
Use to create a Rovai member or revise and confirm the unsaved identity card and avatar for that creation. Exclude profile questions, edits to existing members, and character or avatar designs without roster creation.