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 brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrapWrote 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/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/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/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap/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 | $0.00041 | $0.00588 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00235 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Skill
Run a full expert code review before merging.
When to use
- Before opening or merging a PR/MR
- When asked to review code
- After implementing a significant feature
Protocol
1. Gather the diff
git --no-pager diff main...HEAD | head -500
Or specify a branch: git --no-pager diff <base>...<head> | head -500
2. Read context
claude/templates.mdfor PR template requirementsclaude/rules.mdfor project-specific rules
3. Spawn reviewer subagent (recommended for isolation)
"Spawn a reviewer subagent to review this PR. Diff: [paste diff]. Focus on the 10-point protocol."
4. Or: Self-review with the 10-point protocol
Point 1 — Ticket re-read: Does every scenario in the ticket/task get addressed?
Point 2 — Cross-layer consistency: Grep every new field name, type, enum across ALL layers:
grep -rn --color=never '<new_field_name>' . | head -50
Point 3 — Enum completeness: Are all enum values handled in every switch/if-chain?
Point 4 — Transaction safety: Are there external calls (HTTP, queue, email) inside DB transactions? → Move them outside.
Point 5 — Race conditions: Is there shared mutable state accessed concurrently without synchronization?
Point 6 — Test coverage: Every new branch/case/error path has a dedicated test?
Point 7 — Pre-existing vs. introduced: Run lint before and after. Distinguish new warnings from pre-existing ones.
Point 8 — Cross-branch merge safety: Will this still apply cleanly after other pending branches merge?
Point 9 — Security: New HTTP calls? Data exposed? New permissions? Unsafe defaults?
Point 10 — Confidence gate: Overall confidence 0-100. Only proceed to PR description if ≥95.
5. Output the review
Report format:
- Verdict: PASS / FAIL / NEEDS WORK
- Confidence: X/100
- Blocking issues (must fix)
- Advisory suggestions (non-blocking)
6. If passing: generate PR description
Use /mr skill after the review passes.
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 · 70 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 5a9574c88b47
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository brain-bootstrap/claude-code-brain-bootstrap (11 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 588 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-spec
Use after implementing tasks or mid-feature to verify code matches design docs and ensure they are in sync. Detects spec deviations, missing implementations, doc inconsistencies, and outdated docs in design and implementation documentation.
review-design
Review design, implementation, and task documents produced by design. Evaluates document quality, internal consistency, and technical soundness. Use after design completes and before starting implement.
review-architecture
Review a written architecture artifact — an ADR (docs/adr/), a broader architecture doc, the architecture section of a design doc, or a domain-reference kit (glossary + traps pages, reviewed as one composite artifact) — against the system it claims to describe. Verifies the EXISTENCE and TOPOLOGY of declared…
review-code
Code review of current git changes with an expert senior-engineer lens. Detects SOLID violations, security risks, and proposes actionable improvements. Use when performing code reviews.
diff-skill
Compare two versions of a skill's instructions to detect degradations and complexity increases. TRIGGER when: user asks to diff, compare, or review changes to a skill's markdown instructions. Asymmetric check — only regressions count. Additions, clarifications, and strengthenings are not degradations. Compares HEAD →…
greet
Ask for the user's preferred name before greeting.