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 autohandai/code-cli --skill pull-request-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/autohandai/code-cliWrote 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/autohandai/code-cli/pull-request-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/autohandai/code-cli/pull-request-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/autohandai/code-cli/pull-request-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/autohandai/code-cli/pull-request-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/autohandai/code-cli/pull-request-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 | $0.00061 | $0.00497 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00199 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
pull-request-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
Review the change, not the style guide
A useful review finds the defect that would have shipped and explains it so the author can fix it in one pass.
Establish scope
- Get the diff (
git_difffor the working tree,git_diff_rangeagainst the base branch). Read the whole diff before commenting on any part. - Read the linked issue, PR description, or commit messages. Write one line stating what the change claims to do.
- Open the files around the diff; a change is only correct in context.
Check in this order
- Does it do what it says: every requirement from the issue is met, no silent scope changes, no leftover debug code or TODOs.
- Correctness: edge cases, error paths, concurrency, ordering, off-by-one, null and empty inputs, resource cleanup, timeouts.
- Security: injection, path traversal, secrets, permission checks, unsafe deserialization, shell execution with user input.
- Compatibility: public API, config, storage formats, migrations, feature flags, older callers.
- Tests: a test fails before and passes after for each fix; new behavior has coverage including edge cases; flaky patterns (sleeps, real network).
- Maintainability: naming, duplication, module boundaries, comments only where logic is non-obvious.
Run the tests and lint yourself when the environment allows; a review with evidence beats one with opinions.
Deliver
- Verdict first: approve, approve with nits, or request changes, in one line.
- Findings ordered by severity. Each: file:line, what is wrong, why it matters, a concrete fix. Mark confidence when you could not verify.
- Separate blocking from optional. Keep nits short or drop them.
- Say what you did not review.
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 · 45 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 7639ff36db9c
pull-request-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository autohandai/code-cli (205 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 497 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 2026-09-15.
Other skills, from other repositories
auto-review
Use this skill to configure and understand the built-in auto-review plugin (wstack-auto-review) that fires automated code review subagents on every code change during a session. Triggers: user says "auto review", "otomatik review", "auto code review", "her değişiklikte review", "/auto-review".
code-review
Use this skill when asked to review code changes — a pull request, a branch, a commit range, or the current diff — for correctness, security, and maintainability before they merge. Triggers: user says "review", "code review", "review this PR", "review my changes", "look over the diff", "is this ready to merge", "PR…
codex-adversarial-review
Use this skill to conduct aggressive, adversarial code reviews on git changes, branches, or PRs to detect critical edge cases, race conditions, security holes, and data loss risks. Triggers: user mentions "adversarial review", "break the code", "find vulnerabilities", "security audit PR", "race condition check", "ship…
chimera
Use this skill for post-session code quality review of files added or modified during a WrongStack session. It runs automatically when a session ends, and on demand. Trigger on the explicit vocabulary — "review", "code review", "quality check", "post-session review", "chimeric review", "chimera" — and on the task…
code-quality
Find and remove unused code, ghost dependencies, unnecessary coupling and bundle waste with source-confirmed reachability. Use when cleaning exports or packages, reviewing Knip output or reducing dead code; use security-scanner for security findings and preserve public/dynamic entrypoints.
code-reviewer
Review code for best practices, bugs, and security issues.