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/chandrudp29/skillhub/code-reviewernpx skills add chandrudp29/skillhub --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/chandrudp29/skillhubWrote 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/chandrudp29/skillhub/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/chandrudp29/skillhub/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/chandrudp29/skillhub/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00041 | $0.00996 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00498 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00199 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00100 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
Five-axis structured code review. Finds what matters, ignores what doesn't, and produces actionable feedback — not a style lecture.
When to Use
- "Review this code"
- "Check my PR"
- "Is this safe to merge?"
- "What could go wrong here?"
- Before merging any non-trivial change
The Five Axes
Review in this order. Stop at critical findings — don't bury them.
Axis 1 — Correctness
Does the code do what it claims?
- Does it handle the happy path correctly?
- What about empty inputs, null values, zero, negative numbers?
- Are there off-by-one errors in loops/slices?
- Are async operations awaited correctly?
- Are there race conditions if called concurrently?
- Do error paths clean up resources (files, connections, locks)?
Severity: Any correctness bug is at minimum MEDIUM. Incorrect behavior in production = CRITICAL.
Axis 2 — Security
Does the code introduce vulnerabilities?
Checklist:
- SQL/NoSQL injection (string concatenation in queries)
- Command injection (user input in shell commands)
- Path traversal (user-controlled file paths)
- XSS (unsanitized user content rendered as HTML)
- Secrets in code (API keys, passwords, tokens hardcoded)
- Insecure deserialization (pickle, eval, exec on user data)
- Authentication bypass (missing auth checks on routes)
- Overly permissive CORS or CSP
- Sensitive data in logs
Severity: Any security finding is CRITICAL or HIGH. Flag immediately, don't bury in a list.
Axis 3 — Performance
Will this code be fast enough at scale?
- N+1 queries (DB query inside a loop)
- Missing database indexes for the query pattern
- Blocking I/O in async code
- Unnecessary data fetching (SELECT * when 2 columns needed)
- Memory leaks (event listeners not removed, caches unbounded)
- Expensive operations in hot paths (JSON parse per request, etc.)
Only flag if the code will actually run at meaningful scale. Don't micro-optimize cold paths.
Axis 4 — Maintainability
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 135 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 08ad9ac33ff2
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository chandrudp29/skillhub (13 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 996 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
code-review
AI-powered code review for diffs and individual files using LLM analysis.
code-review-checklist
Guide an AI agent through a structured code review — correctness, security, performance, readability, and test coverage — producing a summary with actionable, prioritized feedback. Triggers on pull-request review, diff review, or "review this code" requests.
code-review
Applies a consistent, language-agnostic review framework to any code change. It evaluates code across five dimensions, produces prioritised findings with inline suggestions, and distinguishes blockers (must fix before merge) from improvements (worth addressing but not blocking).
audit
Use when the user wants a code review on recent changes — quality, spec, security, or performance feedback. Triggers a multi-level (L1-L5) review with a standalone Reviewer; on NEEDSFIX, offers to apply findings via /hyperflow:plan. Trigger with /hyperflow:audit, "review this change", "review my PR", "audit the diff"…
requesting-code-review
Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…