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 agentmods add skills/bdiasti/maestro-bundle-cli/code-reviewnpx skills add bdiasti/maestro-bundle-cli --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bdiasti/maestro-bundle-cliWhat 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 | $0.00035 | $0.00951 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00476 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00190 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00095 |
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 2d 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 — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Perform structured code reviews following the organization's quality, security, and pattern standards.
When to Use
- When asked to review a pull request or merge request
- When evaluating code quality of a file or module
- When a developer asks for feedback on their code
- Before approving a merge
Available Operations
- Full PR review with categorized feedback
- Focused review (security-only, quality-only, tests-only)
- Quick review of a single file
- Compliance check against organization patterns
Multi-Step Workflow
Step 1: Gather Context
Read the changed files and understand the purpose of the changes.
# If reviewing a PR/MR
git diff main...HEAD --stat
git diff main...HEAD
git log main...HEAD --oneline
# If reviewing specific files
git diff --cached
Step 2: Run Automated Checks
Execute linters, tests, and static analysis before manual review.
# Backend (Java/Spring)
./mvnw checkstyle:check
./mvnw test
# Frontend (Angular)
npm run lint
npm run test
Step 3: Apply Review Checklist
Correctness:
- Does the code do what the task/spec requires?
- Are edge cases covered?
- Are exception flows handled?
Quality:
- Files with more than 500 lines? Split them.
- Functions with more than 20 lines? Extract.
- Nested ifs (hadouken)? Use early return.
- Descriptive names? (
calculateComplianceScore>calc) - Duplicated code? Extract if repeated 3+ times.
- Dead code? Remove it.
Security:
- Inputs validated at boundaries?
- Hardcoded secrets? REJECT.
- SQL injection possible? Use parameterized queries.
- Rate limiting present on APIs?
Tests:
- Unit tests for business rules?
- Descriptive test names?
- Tests cover happy path AND alternative flows?
Patterns:
- Commit follows Conventional Commits?
- Branch follows naming convention?
- Directory structure by domain?
- Project ubiquitous language respected?
Step 4: Categorize and Deliver Feedback
Use these categories for each comment:
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 140 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A a36a14194a5f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository bdiasti/maestro-bundle-cli (21 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 951 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
agent-host-chat-contributions
Build and review cross-cutting agent-host chat behavior through lifecycle contributions. Use when adding turn lifecycle side effects, prompt or context injection, restored-history transformation, protocol-action observation, or when reviewing changes that add code to AgentSideEffects or AgentService.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.