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 blockmatic/basilic --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/blockmatic/basilicWrote 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/blockmatic/basilic/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/blockmatic/basilic/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/blockmatic/basilic/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00024 | $0.00478 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00239 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00096 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00048 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 32 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose and inputs
Use the specified diff, branch, or PR and its intended behavior. Establish the review base and inspect existing tests and surrounding implementation. Remain read-only unless fixes are also requested.
Steps
- Understand the trigger and expected result before judging the implementation. Read tests to learn which claims are actually exercised.
- Check the dimensions below, concentrating on changed behavior, affected callers, and failure paths. Read domain rules when a boundary changes.
- Validate suspected defects with a concrete execution path, failing case, or source evidence. Do not invent timings or vulnerabilities from appearances.
- Challenge verification claims. An unrun check is a finding only when the repository requires it or concrete evidence shows failure. A typecheck that cannot prove a browser path is not a defect when that path is out of scope. Order findings by impact with file/line, trigger, consequence, and smallest useful remedy.
Review checklist
- Correctness: success, empty, invalid, failure, and concurrency cases relevant to this change.
- Callers: existing call sites, generated clients, and public exports still match the new contract.
- Failure paths: error handling, denied access, and recovery are evidenced, not assumed.
- Clarity: names and control flow expose intent; refactoring removes complexity instead of moving it.
- Architecture: ownership, dependencies, generated sources, and existing shared helpers remain coherent. Generated files were not edited by hand.
- Security: changed input and authorization boundaries, secret exposure, and denied access paths are checked.
- Performance: changed queries, list bounds, repeated work, and client rendering have evidence appropriate to their risk.
- Verification: tests exercise behavior; claimed checks were actually run and cover the change. If a finding implies a new quality or security bar, escalate to
/f-qualityor/f-securityinstead of inventing policy.
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.
- yesterday Changed · +18 lines · -1 tokens per session b5cf836712aa
- 4d ago First seen · 14 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 6b72867026eb
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository blockmatic/basilic (89 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 478 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…