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 baseballyama/eslint-plugin-postgresql --skill full-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/baseballyama/eslint-plugin-postgresqlWrote 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/baseballyama/eslint-plugin-postgresql/full-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/baseballyama/eslint-plugin-postgresql/full-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baseballyama/eslint-plugin-postgresql/full-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/baseballyama/eslint-plugin-postgresql/full-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/baseballyama/eslint-plugin-postgresql/full-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to low
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- low Excessive Agency · line 253 Skill's behavior or capabilities extend beyond its stated purpose. Scope creep allows an agent to perform actions unrelated to its documented functionality, increasing the attack surface.Fix: Limit the skill's scope to its documented purpose. Remove instructions that enable the agent to perform actions outside its stated functionality.
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 | $0.00082 | $0.02389 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00033 | $0.00956 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00478 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00239 |
Grade A, and why
full-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 254 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Full code review
Before opening a PR — or before merging your own — review the branch as if you were a maintainer who didn't write it. The author's view is "what I built"; the maintainer's view is "what this costs forever." This skill walks the second view.
The skill is collaborative: each phase produces a finding, you and the user agree on what to do about it, and only then do you move to the next phase. Do not batch all phases and dump the result at the end.
Step 0 — Establish the baseline
Decide what you're comparing against and what the diff actually contains.
# Determine the base branch (in priority order):
# 1. User explicitly said "compare against X" → use X
# 2. PR exists → gh pr view <num> --json baseRefName
# 3. Default → origin/main (or the project's primary branch)
git fetch origin
git diff --stat ${BASE}...HEAD
git log --oneline ${BASE}...HEAD
git diff --name-only ${BASE}...HEAD
Categorize the changed files (use whatever buckets fit the project):
- Public API surface (entry points, type exports)
- Internal implementation
- Tests
- Documentation
- Build / CI / tooling
- Dependencies (lockfile, package manifests)
Report to user: which base branch you're using, the diff size, and the categorization. If the diff is huge (thousands of lines or many unrelated buckets), flag that this PR may need to be split — and confirm whether to continue.
Phase 1 — Why does this change exist?
The hardest review question is "should this even ship?" Before judging the code, make sure the change has a real reason to exist.
Pull what's available:
- PR description, linked issues, commit messages
- Any design discussion the user can paste in
- Connect to the
CLAUDE.mdpolicies — especially "one way to do one thing"
Confirm with the user:
- Problem: what is the user-facing problem this solves?
- Audience: who specifically is affected? (new users, advanced users, a specific integration?)
- Alternatives: was a smaller, doc-only, or "use the existing path" answer considered?
- Scope fit: does this stay inside this project's stated scope?
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 · 254 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A 8a5827852b00
full-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository baseballyama/eslint-plugin-postgresql (11 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 2,389 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
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"…
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…
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…
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…