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 babyworm/rtl-agent-team --skill code-review-policygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/babyworm/rtl-agent-teamWrote 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/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/code-review-policy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/code-review-policy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/code-review-policy.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00018 | $0.00427 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00214 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00085 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00043 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-policy 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 4d 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
Code Review Policy
Scope
- RTL logic correctness and spec/uarch compliance
- Testbench quality and checker/scoreboard adequacy
- Verification completeness (coverage + traceability)
- Silicon risk indicators (constraints/CDC/synthesis/timing impacts)
Severity
S0 Blocker: data corruption, protocol/safety breakage, hard spec violationS1 Critical: high silicon risk, functional failure likely under valid stimulusS2 Major: maintainability/test-quality issues with medium defect riskS3 Minor: style/readability/non-blocking improvements
Pass/Fail Gate
FAIL: any unresolvedS0orS1CONDITIONAL: onlyS2findings remain and have approved remediation planPASS: onlyS3or no findings
Escalation
- Any
S0: immediate stop, escalate to orchestrator/user with fix-first recommendation - Repeated
S1on same module after 2 fix loops: escalate to architecture owner - Missing evidence for
S0/S1: finding is invalid until evidence attached
Evidence Rules
- Every
S0/S1finding must include reproducible evidence:- file and line
- failing command/log snippet
- expected vs actual behavior
- Prefer replay artifacts (
*_latest.sh, wave/report paths) over prose-only claims
Output Format
Use the following report skeleton:
# Code Review Report
- Scope: module|block|top
- Verdict: PASS | CONDITIONAL | FAIL
## Findings
| ID | Severity | File:Line | Summary | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
## Required Actions
| Priority | Owner | Action | Recheck |
|---|---|---|---|
## Escalations
- [if any]
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 57 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 7fcf8895ce12
code-review-policy is a skill published in the GitHub repository babyworm/rtl-agent-team (51 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 427 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
qa-review
QA review for code changes — test coverage analysis, edge case identification, test plan generation, regression detection, test health tracking over time.
flutter-mcp-boundary-audit
Generic contract/schema boundary audit across authoring, discovery, validation, and execute—detecting split-brain between listings and invoke paths, gateway divergence, and permissive placeholders. Use when changing tool registration, RPC/plugin registries, dynamic tools, MCP or WebMCP surfaces, CLI exec aliases…
readable-verilog-generator
Use when creating, writing, reviewing, annotating, repairing, refactoring, or validating readable Verilog RTL, including synthesizable Verilog-2001 .v files, existing-RTL analysis, semantic comment annotation, testbench scaffold planning, ASIC-quality review, local or remote Vivado/xsim validation, evidence-backed…
fresh-eyes-loop
A repeatable quality-review process using two independent agents: one reviews and verifies, while the other fixes issues. P0 and P1 mean the highest-severity problem levels.
aster-review-ci
Run aster code reviews non-interactively in CI, GitHub Actions, or from another agent. Covers aster review --pr, --json, --stream, --comment, diff-from-stdin, token handling, and filtering findings. Use when wiring aster into a pipeline, posting PR comments, or parsing review output programmatically.
rtl-review
Audit RTL code for lint violations, synthesis hazards, coding-style compliance, and readability. Use when the user says "review this Verilog", "check my RTL", "lint this module", "is this code synthesizable", or shares an HDL file and asks for feedback before simulation or tape-in.