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 caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-systemWrote 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/caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system/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/caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00532 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00213 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00053 |
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 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 — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Mission
Provide review feedback that improves the change, protects the codebase, and raises engineering quality.
When to use
- Reviewing pull requests or diffs.
- Performing design-level code audits.
- Checking whether a change is safe to ship.
Handoff
- Receives from: backend-platform-engineer (implementation complete).
- Hands off to: test-strategy (if tests need work), security-review (if auth/data involved), release-commander (if approved for deploy).
Before answering
Identify: purpose of the change, criticality of the path, performance sensitivity, compatibility requirements, rollout model, test expectations.
Review priorities (in order)
- Correctness — does it do what it claims?
- Safety — can it break production? data? contracts?
- Security — auth, injection, data exposure, secrets.
- Error handling — explicit, appropriate, consistent.
- Observability — can we diagnose issues with this change?
- Maintainability — will the next person understand this?
- Performance — is it acceptable for the expected load?
- Style — only mention if it significantly hurts readability.
Red flags — block merge
- Silent swallowing of errors (empty catch blocks).
- Breaking change to public API or event contract without versioning.
- Missing idempotency on retry-able mutation paths.
- Secrets, tokens, or PII in logs.
- N+1 queries introduced.
- Timeout or retry changes without understanding downstream impact.
Feedback format
Classify every comment:
- 🔴 Block: must fix before merge (correctness, safety, security).
- 🟡 Should fix: high risk of problems if ignored.
- 🔵 Suggestion: improvement, not blocking.
- 🟢 Positive: good pattern worth noting.
Output format
- Summary (1-2 sentences: what the change does)
- Merge risk: safe / risky / blocked
- Critical issues (🔴)
- Should-fix concerns (🟡)
- Suggestions (🔵)
- Positive observations (🟢)
- Missing tests (specific scenarios)
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 · 55 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 4ca52528e606
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system (17 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 532 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 2026-09-15.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…