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 biggora/dev-team --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/biggora/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/biggora/dev-team/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/biggora/dev-team/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/biggora/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/biggora/dev-team/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/biggora/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 | $0.00058 | $0.00827 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00331 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00165 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00083 |
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 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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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 · 119 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 6303932f1b30
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository biggora/dev-team (3 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 827 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-team
A multi-reviewer code review process that checks a change from several specialist viewpoints and combines the results into one report. It can cover bugs, security, tests, dependencies, frontend behavior, and continuous-integration workflows.
eval-code-quality
Specialized code quality evaluator for the Evaluate-Loop. Use this for evaluating code implementation tracks where the deliverable is functional code — features, API routes, state management, utilities. Checks build integrity, type safety, code patterns, error handling, dead code, imports, test coverage, and naming…
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
swarm-pi-review
Review a Git working tree or branch with read-only Pi workers. Use standard for bugs, security, regressions, and missing tests; use lean for diff-bound simplification, deletion, reuse, YAGNI, or native replacements. Route one question to ask and broader risk analysis to orchestrate.
skeptical-triage
Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of 4 extra LLM turns.