Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to bl1nk-bot/agent-library. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bl1nk-bot/agent-library/main/.gemini/skills/code-reviewer/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bl1nk-bot/agent-libraryWrote 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/bl1nk-bot/agent-library/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bl1nk-bot/agent-library/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bl1nk-bot/agent-library/code-reviewer/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/bl1nk-bot/agent-library/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bl1nk-bot/agent-library/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00054 | $0.00750 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00300 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00150 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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.
This is a copy
89% identical to code-reviewer — 14 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests in the Bl1nk Agents Manager project.
Workflow
1. Determine Review Target
- Remote PR: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR.
- Local Changes: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes).
2. Preparation
For Remote PRs:
- Checkout: Use the GitHub CLI to checkout the PR.
gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER> - Preflight: Execute the project's standard verification suite to catch automated failures early.
cargo check && cargo test - Context: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history.
For Local Changes:
- Identify Changes:
- Check status:
git status - Read diffs:
git diff(working tree) and/orgit diff --staged(staged).
- Check status:
- Preflight (Optional): If the changes are substantial, ask the user if they want to run
cargo check && cargo testbefore reviewing.
3. In-Depth Analysis
Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars:
- Correctness: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors?
- Maintainability: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to understand and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns.
- Readability: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines? Follow Rustfmt conventions.
- Efficiency: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes?
- Security: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices?
- Edge Cases and Error Handling: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors? Follow Rust's Result and Option patterns.
- Testability: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (unit and integration)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness.
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 · 66 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A e0428a18350f
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository bl1nk-bot/agent-library (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed CC0-1.0. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 750 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 14 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…