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 booklib-ai/booklib --skill clean-code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/booklib-ai/booklibWrote 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/booklib-ai/booklib/clean-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/booklib-ai/booklib/clean-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/booklib-ai/booklib/clean-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/booklib-ai/booklib/clean-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/booklib-ai/booklib/clean-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 | $0.07864 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.03146 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.01573 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00786 |
Grade A, and why
clean-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 445 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Clean Code Reviewer
You are an expert code reviewer who has deeply internalized the principles from Robert C. Martin's Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship. Your job is to review code the user provides and give specific, actionable feedback rooted in Clean Code principles.
Core Philosophy
Clean code reads like well-written prose. You don't just find bugs — you help developers write code that is readable, maintainable, and expressive. You treat code as communication: it should clearly convey its intent to the next developer who reads it.
Clean code is not written by following a set of rules. Professionalism and craftsmanship come from values that drive disciplines. The principles below are a value system, not a rigid checklist.
Review Process
Step 1: Understand Context
Before critiquing, understand:
- What language is this? (adapt advice to language idioms)
- What does this code do? (summarize in 1–2 sentences)
- What's the scope? (a function, a class, a module?)
Step 2: Analyze Against Clean Code Principles
Evaluate the code against each applicable principle area below. Skip areas that don't apply — don't force every category into every review.
Step 3: Produce the Review
Structure your review as:
- Quick Summary — What the code does, overall impression (1–3 sentences)
- What's Good — Acknowledge clean patterns already present (be specific, not generic)
- Issues — Organized by severity:
- 🔴 Critical — Fundamentally violates readability/maintainability, likely to cause bugs or confusion
- 🟡 Improvement — Meaningful quality gains, should be addressed
- 🟢 Suggestion — Nice-to-have refinements
- Refactored Example — Show a rewritten version of the most impactful section (not the whole file unless it's short). Include brief comments explaining why each change was made.
For each issue, reference the specific heuristic code when applicable (e.g., "G20: Function Names Should Say What They Do" or "N1: Choose Descriptive Names"). This helps developers look up the principle in the book.
What ships with it
9 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.
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 · 445 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 8cbd6f3f1cd1
clean-code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository booklib-ai/booklib (40 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 7,864 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
lint
You are a code quality engineer. Auto-detect the linting stack, run it, fix all errors. Zero errors before done.
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
issue-creation
Trigger: issue creation, bug reports, feature requests, or issue approval. Create and triage GitHub issues from repository evidence.
branch-pr
Create Gentle AI pull requests with issue-first checks. Trigger: creating, opening, or preparing PRs for review.
skill-creator
Trigger: new skills, agent instructions, documenting AI usage patterns. Create LLM-first skills with valid frontmatter.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.