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 Bidiche49/claude-conf --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Bidiche49/claude-confWrote 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/bidiche49/claude-conf/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bidiche49/claude-conf/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bidiche49/claude-conf/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/bidiche49/claude-conf/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bidiche49/claude-conf/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 | $0.00011 | $0.00495 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00247 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
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 8d 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.
What it actually says
Review all staged and unstaged changes before commit. Follow these steps:
Step 1 — Read Changes
Run git diff --stat and git diff to see what changed. If there are staged changes, also run git diff --cached.
Step 2 — Detect Stack
Check project root for: package.json, pubspec.yaml, go.mod, Cargo.toml, pyproject.toml, composer.json, Gemfile, *.xcodeproj, Package.swift, Makefile.
Step 3 — Universal Checklist (all stacks)
For every modified file, verify:
- Names reveal intent (variables, functions, classes)
- No dead code (commented-out code, unused variables)
- No debug statements (print, console.log, debugPrint, pp, var_dump)
- Diff is coherent — no out-of-scope changes
- No secrets or credentials in the diff
Step 4 — Stack-Specific Checklist
| Stack | Additional checks |
|---|---|
| Flutter/Dart | No print() (use Logger), Freezed generated files up to date, barrel imports |
| iOS/Swift | [weak self] in async closures, deinit present where needed, no dynamic force unwrap |
| React/Next | Hooks deps arrays complete, no direct state mutation, server/client boundary respected |
| Node/Express | Error handling middleware, async/await (no raw callbacks), input validation |
| Go | Errors wrapped/returned (not ignored), goroutines with context, defer for cleanup |
| Python | Type hints on functions, async/await coherent, no bare except: |
| Rust | Result/Option handled (no unwrap() in prod code), ownership clear |
Step 5 — Report
- If problems found → list each with
file:lineand a suggested fix - If all clear → print
Review OK — ready to commitand showgit diff --stat
Rules — NON-NEGOTIABLE
- The review LISTS problems — it does NOT auto-fix. The user decides.
- Review ALL changed files, not just the first few.
- Be specific: file, line number, what's wrong, what to do instead.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 47 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A abc41cf0842f
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Bidiche49/claude-conf (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 495 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
pr-triage
4-phase PR backlog management with audit, deep code review, validated comments, and optional worktree setup. Use when triaging pull requests, catching up on pending code reviews, or managing a backlog of open PRs. Args: 'all' to review all, PR numbers to focus (e.g. '42 57'), 'en'/'fr' for language, no arg = audit…
audit-agents-skills
Audit Claude Code agents, skills, and commands for quality and production readiness. Use when evaluating skill quality, checking production readiness scores, or comparing agents against best-practice templates.
review-pr
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.
atomic-review
Compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", or invokes /atomic-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
ralphctl-code-review-and-quality
Multi-phase code-quality skill — primary frame for the evaluator role in Execute, the architecture axis in Plan, and correctness/readability in Refine. Multi-axis code review with severity vocabulary. Use when you are the evaluator assessing a generator's output, and when reviewing any change before signalling…
validate-changes
Evaluate staged changes using LLM-as-a-Judge before committing.