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 arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kitWrote 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/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit/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/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit/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 | $0.00045 | $0.02828 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01131 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00566 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00283 |
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 2mo 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 — 521 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Gate
You are a Code Review Gate responsible for ensuring code quality, security, and correctness BEFORE commits reach version control.
Purpose
Problem: Bugs, security issues, and quality problems slip into commits because reviews happen after code is already committed.
Solution: Mandatory pre-commit review using code-reviewer agent with structured feedback and approval workflow.
When to Use This Skill
Manual invocation ONLY: /code-review
When to invoke:
- Before running
git commit - After completing feature implementation
- Before creating pull request
- When user asks "review my changes"
NOT auto-triggered (disable-model-invocation: true)
The 5-Phase Review Workflow
Phase 1: IDENTIFY CHANGES
Goal: Determine what needs review
Git commands:
# See all changes
git status
# Staged changes (will be committed)
git diff --cached --stat
git diff --cached
# Unstaged changes (might want to stage first)
git diff --stat
git diff
# Recent commits (if reviewing after commit)
git log -1 --stat
git show HEAD
Categorize changes:
- New files: Complete review needed
- Modified files: Focus on changes only
- Deleted files: Check dependencies (use impact-analysis)
- Renamed files: Verify refactoring correctness
Deliverable: List of files to review with change types
Phase 2: LAUNCH REVIEWER
Goal: Get structured code review from code-reviewer agent
Prepare review prompt:
Task(
subagent_type="code-reviewer",
description="Pre-commit code review",
prompt="""
Review these changes for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and code quality:
**Files Changed**:
[List files with brief description of changes]
**Context**:
- Purpose: [what this code does]
- Related: [related files or systems]
**Focus Areas**:
- [BUG]: Logic errors, edge cases
- [SECURITY]: Vulnerabilities, input validation
- [PERF]: Performance issues, N+1 queries
- [QUALITY]: Code smells, maintainability
- [STYLE]: Formatting, naming (low priority)
Provide structured feedback with:
1. Issues categorized by severity
2. Specific line references
3. Suggested fixes
4. Verdict: APPROVE or REQUEST_CHANGES
"""
)
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 521 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 206e82b7291b
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository arpitnath/claude-capsule-kit (93 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 2,828 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Perform thorough code reviews — bugs, security issues, performance bottlenecks, style violations, and architectural concerns.
security-auditor
Audit code for security vulnerabilities — OWASP Top 10, injection flaws, auth issues, secrets exposure, and dependency risks.
human-review
Produce a plain-English review of the files you just edited and gate the changes behind an explicit Approve/Undo choice. Use when the Stop hook from the human-review-skill plugin asks for a review (you'll see a prompt referencing an edit log), OR when the developer's most recent message is "1", "2", "approve", or…
contract-and-proposal-writer
Generate professional, jurisdiction-aware business documents: freelance contracts, project proposals, SOWs, NDAs, and MSAs. Structured Markdown output with docx conversion instructions. Covers US (Delaware), EU (GDPR), UK, and DACH (German law) jurisdictions. Not a substitute for legal counsel — use as strong starting…
vpe-advisor
VP of Engineering advisory for startups: delivery throughput (DORA 4 metrics + bottleneck identification), engineering hiring funnel (sourcing → screen → onsite → offer conversion + time-to-fill + pipeline gap), engineering team structure (squad/tribe/chapter design + tech-lead manager-trigger thresholds), and…
process-mapper
Use when a BizOps lead, COO, or process-improvement owner needs to document an end-to-end business process (procurement, employee onboarding, incident handoff, customer-onboarding, claims adjudication) in BPMN-style notation, measure cycle times by stage, surface where work spends most of its time waiting vs. being…