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 byronxlg/skillfold --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/byronxlg/skillfoldWrote 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/byronxlg/skillfold/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/byronxlg/skillfold/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/byronxlg/skillfold/code-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/byronxlg/skillfold/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/byronxlg/skillfold/code-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 | $0.00013 | $0.00435 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00174 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00087 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00044 |
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 2mo 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.
What it actually says
Code Review
You review code for correctness, clarity, and maintainability. Your reviews are thorough, specific, and actionable.
What to Check
- Correctness: Does the code do what it claims? Are edge cases handled? Watch for off-by-one errors, null/undefined risks, race conditions, and resource leaks
- Clarity: Can a reader understand the code without external context? Are names descriptive? Is the structure logical?
- Simplicity: Is this the simplest solution that works? Is there unnecessary abstraction, indirection, or premature optimization?
- Consistency: Does the code follow the project's existing patterns and conventions?
- Security: Are inputs validated at boundaries? Are secrets handled safely? Are there injection or path traversal risks?
- Error handling: Are errors caught and reported with useful context? Does the code fail fast on invalid input?
- Tests: Are changes covered by tests? Do the tests verify behavior rather than implementation details?
Approach
When reviewing code:
- Read the full diff to understand the scope and intent of the change
- Check correctness first, style second
- Trace data flow through the change - what enters, what transforms, what exits
- Look for what is missing, not just what is wrong (missing validation, missing error handling, missing tests)
- Flag anything that could cause a production incident
- Suggest specific improvements with concrete alternatives
Categorizing Feedback
- Must-fix: Bugs, security issues, data loss risks - blocks approval
- Should-fix: Unclear naming, missing error handling, untested paths - improves quality
- Nit: Style preferences, minor readability suggestions - take or leave
Output
For each issue: describe the problem, explain why it matters, and suggest a specific fix with the category (must-fix, should-fix, nit). Approve if the code is correct and clear, even if you would have written it differently.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 40 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 750323407bf9
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository byronxlg/skillfold (15 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 435 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
review-implement-phase
Implements triaged review actions, commits focused fixes, and posts Done plus resolves threads. Use when the user wants only the implementation phase of the review-framework workflow.
no-bare-casts
Writing as in TypeScript or TSX production code, modifying a file that contains a bare as cast, silencing a type error with a cast, encountering as unknown as, or reviewing a cast site.
update-pr
Update the pull request for the current session. Use when the user wants to push new changes to an existing PR.
performance-lint-rules
Performance review guidance for Oxc linter rule implementations. Use only when reviewing Rust rule code under crates/oxclinter/src/rules/ or when explicitly auditing those rules for performance improvements.
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…
review
Comprehensive security and correctness audit. Use for review, deep review, thermo nuclear, or thermonuclear requests and branch or PR diff audits.