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 bostonaholic/rpikit --skill reviewing-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bostonaholic/rpikitWrote 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/bostonaholic/rpikit/reviewing-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bostonaholic/rpikit/reviewing-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/rpikit/reviewing-code.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 | $0.00044 | $0.01641 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00821 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00328 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00164 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-code 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 266 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Methodology
Deep code reviews that protect architecture, catch correctness issues, and provide mentoring-quality feedback using Conventional Comments.
Purpose
This skill provides methodology for reviewing code changes introduced during implementation. Unlike full codebase audits, this focuses on the delta - what was added or modified - to catch quality issues before they're committed.
Review Workflow
Follow this order - don't jump to nits.
1. Understand Context
- What problem is this solving?
- Is there a linked ticket/design doc?
- Read the implementation plan if available
2. Scan High Level
- Files/directories touched
- New public APIs or endpoints
- New dependencies
- Migrations and data changes
- Size check: 200-400 lines optimal, >1000 recommend splitting
3. Evaluate Correctness
- Does it solve the described problem?
- Edge cases and error conditions handled?
- Assumptions explicit?
- Race conditions considered?
4. Evaluate Design
- Aligns with existing architecture?
- New pattern where existing one would work?
- Local change or architecture decision in disguise?
Pattern Recognition:
| Smell | Pattern to Suggest |
|---|---|
| Long method | Compose Method |
| Type-based conditionals | Replace Conditional with Polymorphism |
| Duplicate algorithm structure | Form Template Method |
| Scattered null checks | Introduce Null Object |
| Type field drives behavior | Replace Type Code with State/Strategy |
Always name patterns explicitly.
SOLID Quick Check:
| Principle | Red Flag |
|---|---|
| SRP | Class has multiple unrelated responsibilities |
| OCP | Must modify existing code to add behavior |
| LSP | Subclass changes expected behavior |
| ISP | Fat interface forces unused dependencies |
| DIP | High-level depends on low-level details |
5. Evaluate Tests
- Tests for critical paths and edge cases?
- Tests read like specifications?
- Stable, isolated, fast?
Red Flags:
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 · 266 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 8d353a84c135
reviewing-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository bostonaholic/rpikit (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,641 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
cross-review
Verify an implementer's diff with an INDEPENDENT, different-vendor sub-agent (diff plus contract only); turn blocking issues into fix-tasks and loop until clean.
cocoreview
CocoReview — structured code review with six-severity findings vocabulary, progressive disclosure architecture, and universal anti-pattern baseline. Invoked via $review [file] [--complexity] [--security] [--architecture] [--language ].
sentinel
CocoSentinel — eight-dimension artifact quality gate. Dimension G evidence pre-gate runs first (deterministic, .
review
Enter the Review phase of CocoBrew. Aggregates findings from Code Quality Advisor, CocoCupper intelligence, spec compliance check, and decision coverage gate. Produces review.md with decision points. Requires developer approval before $ship can proceed.
lean-review
CocoLean diff-scoped over-engineering audit — scans uncommitted git diff and applies five classification tags (delete/stdlib/native/yagni/shrink) to identify unnecessary surface area before commit.
sentinel-approve
CocoSentinel approval — records SHA-bound approval for a previously evaluated artifact. Invoked via $sentinel --approve [file]. Voids automatically if the artifact is modified after approval.