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 arozumenko/sdlc-skills --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arozumenko/sdlc-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/arozumenko/sdlc-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arozumenko/sdlc-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arozumenko/sdlc-skills/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00064 | $0.00629 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00315 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00063 |
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 7d 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 — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Systematic code review focused on what matters. Not a style police — a correctness and risk checker.
Review Scope
Determine what to review:
# Review staged changes
git --no-pager diff --cached
# Review working tree changes
git --no-pager diff
# Review a PR
gh pr diff <number>
# Review specific files
# Just read them directly
Review Checklist
Check in this priority order. Stop at each category — don't rush to the next.
1. Correctness
- Does it do what it claims?
- Are edge cases handled (nulls, empty collections, boundary values)?
- Are error paths correct (not swallowed, not over-caught)?
- Do conditional branches cover all cases?
2. Security
- Input validation at system boundaries (user input, API responses)?
- SQL injection, XSS, command injection risks?
- Secrets in code or logs?
- Permissions and authorization checked?
3. Concurrency & State
- Race conditions in shared state?
- Proper locking/synchronization?
- Async operations awaited correctly?
- Resources properly closed/released?
4. Performance
- O(n^2) or worse in hot paths?
- Unnecessary allocations in loops?
- N+1 query patterns?
- Missing indexes for new queries?
5. Maintainability
- Is the intent clear from reading the code?
- Could someone unfamiliar modify this safely?
- Are there implicit assumptions that should be explicit?
Output Format
Structure your review as:
## Summary
One sentence: what this change does and whether it looks good.
## Issues
### [Critical/Important/Nit] Title
File: path/to/file.py:42
Description of the issue and why it matters.
Suggested fix (if non-obvious).
## Questions
Things that aren't wrong but need clarification from the author.
Severity levels:
- Critical — will break in production, security vulnerability, data loss risk
- Important — correctness issue, significant performance problem, missing error handling
- Nit — style, naming, minor improvement (limit to 2-3 max, don't pile on)
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 96 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A c8775533bae6
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository arozumenko/sdlc-skills (20 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 629 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.