Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/plugin install dev-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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/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/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/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 | $0.00070 | $0.24721 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.09888 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.04944 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.02472 |
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 24d 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 — 1,016 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
The review-agent panel is the primary quality gate (Rec 5,
docs/experiments/RECOMMENDATIONS.md). The review-agent lens — SRP,
complexity, coupling, duplication — was the only quality axis that separated
workflow arms in the experiment line. Coverage and mutation scores saturate
near-identically across every workflow shape and must never be used to
rank workflow quality: the losing big-batch and split arms posted higher
mutation scores (0.93–0.98) than the two winners (0.80–0.86). A higher
coverage or mutation number is not evidence that code — or the workflow that
produced it — is better. (The deterministic static-analysis pre-pass below is
a different, complementary axis: mechanical findings cleared before the
semantic panel runs, not a metric competing with it.)
Role: orchestrator. Route work to review agents; do not review code yourself. Pass each agent's model:/effort: frontmatter as declared when dispatching — the harness resolves both fields natively before dispatch, per Model/Effort Resolution in agents/orchestrator.md (ADR 0026).
Output templates and JSON schemas: output-format.md. Example report: examples/sample-report.md.
Orchestrator constraints
MUST — confirm agent-dispatch capability before anything else in this skill (issue #1461). Before attempting to dispatch ANY review agent (Step 4), you MUST confirm the Agent (or Task) tool is actually present and available in your current toolset. If it is not present: STOP. Do not proceed with a self-applied, inline, or checklist-based review of any kind as a substitute for independent dispatch — an orchestrator applying the review agents' checklists itself is not a review, it is self-certification, and it defeats the entire purpose of this gate. Do not write .pr-review-passed under any circumstance in this state. Instead, report to the user/operator plainly: code review cannot run in this environment because no agent-dispatch capability (Agent/Task tool) is available; name exactly what's missing; and state that the PR gate cannot be satisfied until /code-review is re-run from a session that has that capability. This is a hard requirement, not a preference — "should dispatch agents" is not sufficient; a missing Agent/Task tool always halts this skill before Step 2.
What ships with it
23 files 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.
- examples/aggregated-sample.json 1.6 KB
- examples/sample-report.md 1.4 KB
- output-format.md 22 KB
- scripts/activation.py 3.0 KB runs code
- scripts/change_impact.py 15 KB runs code
- scripts/change_shape.py 17 KB runs code
- scripts/change_size.py 8.2 KB runs code
- scripts/changed_file_list.py 6.3 KB runs code
- scripts/closing_pass.py 7.4 KB runs code
- scripts/consolidate.py 11 KB runs code
- scripts/contract_failure_report.py 7.2 KB runs code
- scripts/dispatch_reconcile.py 2.2 KB runs code
- scripts/dispatch_waves.py 7.4 KB runs code
- scripts/finding_signature.py 18 KB runs code
- scripts/ledger.py 10 KB runs code
- scripts/partition.py 6.3 KB runs code
- scripts/render_tiered_findings.py 11 KB runs code
- scripts/repo_invariants.py 48 KB runs code
- scripts/review_context_pack.py 12 KB runs code
- scripts/review_round_log.py 13 KB runs code
- scripts/review_value_coverage.py 12 KB runs code
- scripts/validate_review_output.py 21 KB runs code
- sliced-mode.md 11 KB
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.
- 24d ago Changed · +49 lines 97d0b514bef1
- 25d ago Changed · +1 lines 7d5dc825d96a
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 69858c69a3d2
- 1mo ago Changed · +21 lines bc59caa97125
- 1mo ago Changed · +25 lines 354281bbf202
- 1mo ago First seen · 919 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A b17193c90d38
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository bdfinst/agentic-dev-team (295 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 24,721 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 2026-09-03.
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…