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 baleen37/bstack --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/baleen37/bstackWrote 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/baleen37/bstack/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/baleen37/bstack/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baleen37/bstack/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/baleen37/bstack/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baleen37/bstack/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 | $0.00081 | $0.01956 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00782 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00391 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00196 |
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 19d 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to code-review — 195 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code review
code-review → one careful diff pass → ≤15 ranked findings
Arguments
Read the text that follows the skill name in the invocation:
--fix— apply the findings after the review (see Applying fixes).--comment— post the findings to the PR/MR (see Posting).- Target — anything else: a PR number, branch name, or path. Strip a
leading
#from a PR number.
State the target you are reviewing on one line before starting.
Tool mapping
This skill runs on Claude Code and Codex. Where it says:
- findings tool — a
ReportFindingstool, if one is in your tool set. Otherwise use the JSON output contract. - instruction files —
CLAUDE.md,CLAUDE.local.md,AGENTS.md, andAGENTS.override.md.
Do the whole review yourself in this context. Do not spawn subagents or delegate the review to another agent — not for finding, not for verifying.
Phase 0 — Gather the diff
Run git diff @{upstream}...HEAD (or git diff main...HEAD / git diff HEAD~1
if there's no upstream) to get the unified diff under review. If there are
uncommitted changes, or the range diff is empty, also run git diff HEAD and
include the working-tree changes in scope — the review often runs before the
commit. If a PR number, branch name, or file path was passed as an argument,
review that target instead (gh pr diff <n> for a PR). Treat this diff as the
review scope.
Phase 1 — Review
Review the diff as a careful senior engineer would: read every hunk, open the surrounding files for context as needed (Read, Grep, git log/blame/show), and hunt for correctness issues first:
- wrong or inverted conditions, off-by-one, null/undefined dereference,
missing
await, falsy-zero checks, wrong-variable copy-paste, error swallowed in a catch that should propagate - removed guards or validations — for each deleted or replaced line, name the behavior it enforced and check the new code still enforces it
- broken callers of changed functions — grep the symbol and check for a new precondition, changed return shape, new exception, or ordering dependency
- races and language pitfalls the diff introduces
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.
- 19d ago Changed · +84 lines · -13 tokens per session b0228c9c3248
- 1mo ago Changed · +5 lines 757edcc1e4ae
- 1mo ago Changed b16e88a44bd9
- 1mo ago Changed 47f4e52c2169
- 1mo ago First seen · 88 lines · 94 tokens per session scan A 9b40c757a2b7
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository baleen37/bstack (4 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 1,956 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to code-review, differing in 195 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…