code-review

A code-review process that checks a code change from two separate viewpoints: project standards and the requested specification.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review the changes between a chosen Git reference and the current branch, with separate findings for standards and specification.
Why use it?
It makes it easier to spot both maintainability problems and cases where the implementation does not match the original request.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/assisjp/specflow/code-review
Any agent
npx skills add assisjp/specflow --skill code-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/assisjp/specflow

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 105 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,706 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00105 $0.01706
Opus 5 $0.00053 $0.00853
Sonnet 5 $0.00021 $0.00341
Haiku 4.5 $0.00011 $0.00171

Measured 2d ago against content hash 2ad8881d7fe7, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 2d 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.

skills/engineering/code-review/SKILL.md · 83 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 83 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 HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:

  • Standards — does the code follow the repo's documented standards and avoid known code smells?
  • Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?

The two axes run as parallel sub-agents so they do not pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings without merging them.

Process

1. Pin the fixed point

Use whatever the user gave — a SHA, branch, tag, main, HEAD~5. If none, ask.

Capture the diff once with three-dot (compares against the merge-base): git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD, and the commit list: git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.

Confirm the ref resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty before spawning sub-agents. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two agents.

2. Find the spec source

In order: (1) a path the caller passedspec-execution passes the exact spec or ticket file it implemented; use it directly, never refetch over it; (2) issue references in the commit messages (#123, Closes #45) — fetch with gh issue view where available; (3) a spec under docs/specs/ or a ticket under docs/tickets/<slug>/ matching the branch or feature — in no-tracker mode the ticket is the per-PR spec (see ADR 0006); (4) if nothing, ask. If the user says there is no spec, the Spec axis reports "no spec available" and is skipped. (Durable specs/tickets live under docs/, never .scratch/.) The caller-passed path is first because guessing a source that was handed to you is the exact class of error the flow eliminates elsewhere — a commit's Closes #45 must not send the review refetching an issue when spec-execution already gave it the file.

3. Assemble the standards sources

Anything the repo documents about how code should be written — CODING_STANDARDS.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, CLAUDE.md. On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below, under two rules:

Read the full file on GitHub · 83 lines

Files

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.

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 83 lines · 105 tokens per session scan A 2ad8881d7fe7

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository assisjp/specflow (17 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 105 tokens to every session and 1,706 once invoked, about $0.0005 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.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

systematic-debugging

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.

obra/superpowers · 21 tokens

next-cache-components-adoption

Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…

vercel/next.js · 95 tokens

babysit-pr

Babysit a GitHub pull request after creation by continuously polling review comments, CI checks/workflow runs, and mergeability state until the PR is merged/closed or user help is required. Diagnose failures, retry likely flaky failures up to 3 times, auto-fix/push branch-related issues when appropriate, and keep…

openai/codex · 114 tokens

imagegen

Generate or edit raster images when the task benefits from AI-created bitmap visuals such as photos, illustrations, textures, sprites, mockups, or transparent-background cutouts. Use when Codex should create a brand-new image, transform an existing image, or derive visual variants from references, and the output…

openai/codex · 113 tokens

cpu-profile-analysis

Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…

microsoft/vscode · 71 tokens

next-cache-components-optimizer

Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…

vercel/next.js · 170 tokens