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 besimple-oss/broccoli --skill code-review-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/besimple-oss/broccoliWrote 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/besimple-oss/broccoli/code-review-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/besimple-oss/broccoli/code-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/besimple-oss/broccoli/code-review-loop/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/besimple-oss/broccoli/code-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/besimple-oss/broccoli/code-review-loop.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 | $0.00040 | $0.01555 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00622 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00311 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00155 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-loop 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Loop (up to 3 iterations)
Input: a git base SHA (or other explicit range) to review against (for example: <sha> or HEAD~1).
Preconditions
- Confirm you are in the intended repo:
git rev-parse --show-toplevel - Ensure you have a base commit SHA (prefer the commit from before the change set).
- If none was provided and you cannot choose confidently, ask the user for the correct base SHA.
- Start from a clean working tree (recommended):
git status --porcelainshould be empty.- If it’s not empty, either commit/stash first or ask the user what to do (don’t mix unrelated changes into review fixes).
- Ensure both CLIs are available (
codexandclaude) because reviewer/responder must be different vendors.
Expected runtime
Typically runs 15–45 minutes, but allow at least 120 minutes.
Do not interrupt/restart the subagent if it looks stuck. The loop script owns stuck/timeout handling and will exit on its own when it completes or when --timeout is reached. Prefer watching the periodic heartbeat output (--heartbeat-seconds) instead of tailing logs.
Why Claude sometimes looked “stuck”
Claude Code print mode can be silent in --output-format text until it finishes (including during tool work). This repo defaults Claude subprocesses to --output-format stream-json --include-partial-messages so the wrapper sees measurable progress and inactivity timeouts mainly trigger on true hangs.
Loop
Run the review loop script:
resolve_skill_dir() {
local name="$1"
local repo_root=""
repo_root="$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || pwd)"
local candidates=(
"$repo_root/.agents/skills/$name"
"$repo_root/.claude/skills/$name"
"$HOME/.agents/skills/$name"
"$HOME/.codex/skills/$name"
"$HOME/.claude/skills/$name"
)
for d in "${candidates[@]}"; do
if [[ -d "$d" ]]; then
echo "$d"
return 0
fi
done
echo "Error: skill '$name' not found in repo-scoped or user-scoped skill dirs." >&2
return 1
}
CODE_REVIEW_LOOP_SKILL_DIR="$(resolve_skill_dir code-review-loop)"
python3 "$CODE_REVIEW_LOOP_SKILL_DIR/scripts/run_review_loop.py" <base-sha>
What ships with it
3 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.
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 · 105 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 3ac8fd631b65
code-review-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository besimple-oss/broccoli (285 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 1,555 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
submit-review
Reference for how a finished ticket reaches human review in the Gaffer factory. Submission is RUNNER-OWNED — the agent commits its work and evidences the ACs, then stops; the runner records the delivery and submits for review (and pushes / opens a PR only when the operator enabled that). Invoke when you think your…
adversarial-reviewer
Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes — before merging a PR, after a sprint, or when you suspect the review is being too agreeable. Forces perspective shifts through three hostile reviewer personas (Saboteur, New Hire, Security Auditor) that play concurrent, crash, retry and malicious-input…
card-review
Internal skill for onboard's semantic review gate. After the deterministic validation gate (which catches invented symbols / hash drift / secrets), this skill drives a sampled claude -p pass that checks whether the TLDR and role are DIRECTIONALLY ACCURATE given the file's structure and head snippet. The deterministic…
resolve-merge-conflict
Use when an approved ticket's delivery branch cannot auto-merge into the default branch because of a merge conflict. Invoke for "resolve the merge conflict on branch X", "the auto-merge conflicted — reconcile it", or when the factory's merge-ticket runner hands you a conflicting gaffer/ branch. Merge the default…
review-ticket
Use as a reviewer agent to review another agent's inreview ticket — never your own. Judge whether each acceptance criterion is genuinely met and proven by a test that exercises that criterion's own behaviour, and whether the change is sound, then record an ADVISORY verdict (per-AC evidence + an overall RECOMMEND…
self-review
Use after implementing a ticket and after its tests pass, but before submitting for review, to review your own diff as a skeptic would. Checks the finished git diff against every acceptance criterion (is each genuinely satisfied, and proven by a test that exercises that criterion's own behaviour?), against scope (did…