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/bestagentkits/ck-skills/code-reviewnpx skills add bestagentkits/ck-skills --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bestagentkits/ck-skillsWrote 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/bestagentkits/ck-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bestagentkits/ck-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bestagentkits/ck-skills/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00046 | $0.02169 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01085 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00434 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00217 |
Grade A, and why
ck: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 6d 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 — 200 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Adversarial code review with technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses. Every review includes red-team analysis that actively tries to break the code.
Input Modes
Auto-detect from arguments. If ambiguous or no arguments, prompt via AskUserQuestion.
| Input | Mode | What Gets Reviewed |
|---|---|---|
#123 or PR URL |
PR | Full PR diff fetched via gh pr diff |
abc1234 (7+ hex chars) |
Commit | Single commit diff via git show |
--pending |
Pending | Staged + unstaged changes via git diff |
| (no args, recent changes) | Default | Recent changes in context |
codebase |
Codebase | Full codebase scan |
codebase parallel |
Codebase+ | Parallel multi-reviewer audit |
Resolution details: references/input-mode-resolution.md
No Arguments
If invoked WITHOUT arguments and no recent changes in context, use AskUserQuestion with header "Review Target", question "What would you like to review?":
| Option | Description |
|---|---|
| Pending changes | Review staged/unstaged git diff |
| Enter PR number | Fetch and review a specific PR |
| Enter commit hash | Review a specific commit |
| Full codebase scan | Deep codebase analysis |
| Parallel codebase audit | Multi-reviewer codebase scan |
Core Principle
YAGNI, KISS, DRY always. Technical correctness over social comfort. Be honest, be brutal, straight to the point, and be concise.
Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.
Practices
| Practice | When | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Spec compliance | After implementing from plan/spec, BEFORE quality review | references/spec-compliance-review.md |
| Adversarial review | Always-on Stage 3 — actively tries to break the code | references/adversarial-review.md |
| Receiving feedback | Unclear feedback, external reviewers, needs prioritization | references/code-review-reception.md |
| Requesting review | After tasks, before merge, stuck on problem | references/requesting-code-review.md |
| Verification gates | Before any completion claim, commit, PR | references/verification-before-completion.md |
| Edge case scouting | After implementation, before review | references/edge-case-scouting.md |
| Checklist review | Pre-landing, /ck:ship pipeline, security audit |
references/checklist-workflow.md |
| Task-managed reviews | Multi-file features (3+ files), parallel reviewers, fix cycles | references/task-management-reviews.md |
What ships with it
14 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.
- references/adversarial-review.md 8.1 KB
- references/checklist-workflow.md 2.8 KB
- references/checklists/api.md 1.9 KB
- references/checklists/base.md 4.1 KB
- references/checklists/web-app.md 1.9 KB
- references/code-review-reception.md 3.1 KB
- references/codebase-scan-workflow.md 1.2 KB
- references/edge-case-scouting.md 2.9 KB
- references/input-mode-resolution.md 3.5 KB
- references/parallel-review-workflow.md 2.2 KB
- references/requesting-code-review.md 3.1 KB
- references/spec-compliance-review.md 1.4 KB
- references/task-management-reviews.md 5.1 KB
- references/verification-before-completion.md 4.2 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.
- 6d ago First seen · 200 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A a5ac2bd82922
ck:code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository bestagentkits/ck-skills (6 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 2,169 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
frontend-design
Guidance for distinctive, intentional frontend/UI design — aesthetic direction, typography, layout, motion, and copy — when building new UI or reshaping existing UI. Gates by scope before designing: a light/surgical change (one component, one page section, extending an existing design system) gets inline design…
adr
Use when the user knows what they want built and says "/adr", "write an ADR for X", "decide and build X", or "ADR-driven". Turns an intent into a grounded, cited, build-ready ADR at docs/adr/YYYY-MM-DD- .md — load-bearing decisions surfaced to the human — then hands off to nightshift:plan's landing step (the plan is…
domain-modeling
Use when pinning down domain terminology, building a ubiquitous language or project glossary, disambiguating overloaded or vague terms, or maintaining a CONTEXT.md — or when another skill needs to sharpen the domain model. Do NOT use for recording architectural decisions (use adr) or for writing implementation specs.
plan
Use when the user has an idea, feature, or fix that is more than a one-sitting edit and says "plan this", "write a plan for X", "/nightshift:plan", or "what would it take to build X". Sizes the work (trivial → no artifact; medium → a lean plan; large → a short spec first), asks one question at a time until the design…
morning
Use when the user says "/nightshift:morning", "what happened overnight", "how did the night go", "why did the loop stop", or opens a session in a repo with a loop/ directory after a scheduled run. Reads the journal since the last start line and every open land / land:blocked pull request, says per stop what happened…
writing-artifacts
Use when writing or revising a durable written artifact — README, ADR, design doc, PR description, release notes, runbook, error message, user-facing docs. Gives a positive writing system (reader model, sentence positions, document jobs), not a ban-list. Do NOT use for conversational replies to the user (global…