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 agentmods add skills/byronxlg/skillfold/code-reviewnpx 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.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00013 | $0.00435 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00217 |
| Sonnet 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 4d 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 40 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A 750323407bf9
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository byronxlg/skillfold (12 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 435 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
audit-onboarding-proposal
Independently audit a brownfield onboarding transcript, operational map, or exact proposed documentation patch before application. Use when a fresh reviewer must verify an $onboard-repository first pass, distinguish environment-caused Unknowns from reasoning defects, score its safety and evidence gates, or run a…
engineering-wisdom
Provide an explicitly requested, repository-grounded engineering review using contextual heuristics for code clarity, SOLID and design, testing, refactoring, architecture, and professional practice. Use only when the user invokes $engineering-wisdom or explicitly asks for this installed engineering-wisdom pack; do not…
proxmox-full
Complete Proxmox VE hypervisor management via REST API - VMs, containers, snapshots, backups, storage.
red-team-adversarial
Adversarial security and resilience analysis — auto-triggered during /review and /test based on task classification. Provides attack surface analysis, boundary testing, auth bypass attempts, dependency chain attacks, and Beast Mode stress testing.
marketing-copy
Write outbound promotional copy for a product or project: launch and update posts for community platforms and social media, store page descriptions and short blurbs, landing page headlines and calls to action, press-style announcements, and the naming of a product for another language or market. Covers what may be…
verification-before-completion
Enforce "no evidence = no completion"; run Gate Function verification before declaring done.