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 byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit --skill code-review-cskgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kitWrote 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/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/code-review-csk)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/code-review-csk"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/code-review-csk/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/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/code-review-csk"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit/code-review-csk.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Prompt Injection · line 11 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
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 | $0.00052 | $0.02937 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.01469 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00587 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00294 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-csk 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 9d 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 — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Trigger phrases: "code-review", "review the code", "review the PR", "review my changes", "do a review"
Kit adaptation (local, .claude/): applied by
review-agent-csk(read-only). No source name appears in the artifact that goes to the repo (§4.2). Comments are severity-ranked; §4 applies.Sources, by layer — three different questions, three different authorities:
- Judgement — how to rank what you found: this kit's own. The two-stage verdict and verifier integrity below exist because the code under review is increasingly written by an agent, and a reviewer that accepts its own say-so is not a reviewer. No external standard covers that yet.
- Governance — that review happens at all, and findings survive it: NIST SP 800-218 (SSDF) PW.7 and the OpenSSF Scorecard Code-Review check. Both are deliberately silent on the rubric: PW.7.2 says to review "based on the organization's secure coding standards", which is what the rest of this file is.
- Comment vocabulary: Conventional Comments (CC BY 3.0).
- Rubric heritage: google/eng-practices (CC BY 3.0) — the priority order and the "code health" bar below are adapted from it, so it is attributed as the licence requires.
Core standard (senior principle)
A change is approved once it reaches the point of improving the overall code health of the system — it does not have to be perfect. Avoid two mistakes:
- Blocking: a perfectionist, subjective fixation that halts progress. If there is no progress, the code never improves.
- Laxity: small concessions each time erode code health over time. The approval criterion is "is it better", not "is it flawless". If it is an unwanted feature, it can be rejected even when the design is good.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 166 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A fbd87d739be3
code-review-csk is a skill published in the GitHub repository byerlikaya/claude-starter-kit (22 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 2,937 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
frontend-code-review
Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., .tsx, .ts, .js). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.
no-mistakes
Validate committed feature-branch changes through the no-mistakes pipeline: intent, rebase, review, test, docs, lint, push, PR, and CI. Use when the user asks to run no-mistakes, ship safely, validate before pushing, or gate a change before it reaches upstream.
caveman-review
Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
generic-react-code-reviewer
Review React/TypeScript code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, GPU-accelerated animations, WCAG AA accessibility, bundle size limits, and surgical simplicity. Use when completing features, before commits, or…