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 christopherlouet/claude-base --skill qa-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/christopherlouet/claude-baseWrote 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/christopherlouet/claude-base/qa-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/christopherlouet/claude-base/qa-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/christopherlouet/claude-base/qa-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/christopherlouet/claude-base/qa-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/christopherlouet/claude-base/qa-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 | $0.00029 | $0.01314 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00526 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00263 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00131 |
Grade A, and why
qa-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 — 156 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Objective
Identify quality, security, and maintainability issues BEFORE merge.
Native features first
Claude Code ships a native /code-review that owns the review execution: effort levels from low to max, --fix to apply findings, --comment to post inline PR comments, and ultra for a multi-agent cloud review. Prefer it to run the review.
This skill's delta is the conventions the review is held to — the checklist below (incl. the substance-check.sh gate native review does not run), the naming tables, and the severity taxonomy. Use them to brief or grade a native /code-review run, or as the manual protocol where the native command is unavailable.
Instructions
1. Overview
# View the changes
git diff main...HEAD --stat
git log main...HEAD --oneline
2. Review checklist
Code quality
- Readability (clear names, short functions)
- DRY (no duplication)
- SOLID (single responsibility)
- Reasonable complexity
- No over-engineering (YAGNI: no speculative options/abstraction; could a stdlib/native/one-liner replace custom code?)
Typing (TypeScript)
- No
any - Explicit types on public APIs
- Well-defined interfaces
Tests
- Tests present and relevant
- Edge cases covered
- Mocks limited to I/O
- Substance: no hollow tests / stubs — run
./scripts/substance-check.sh <changed-files>(flags no-assertion / always-true / skipped / empty / stub; a green suite over hollow tests is not "done")
Security
- Inputs validated
- No hardcoded secrets
- No injection possible
Performance
- No N+1 queries
- No possible infinite loops
- Memory managed correctly
3. Comment format
[TYPE] file:line - comment
Types:
- [CRITICAL] - Blocking, must be fixed
- [IMPORTANT] - Should be fixed
- [SUGGESTION] - Optional improvement
- [QUESTION] - Clarification needed
- [NITPICK] - Minor detail
Expected output
## Review: [PR Title]
### Summary
- **Files modified**: X
- **Lines added**: +Y
- **Lines removed**: -Z
- **Verdict**: Approve / Request Changes / Comment
### Positive points
- [Point 1]
- [Point 2]
### Issues identified
#### Critical
- [CRITICAL] `file.ts:42` - Description
#### Important
- [IMPORTANT] `file.ts:87` - Description
### Suggestions
- [SUGGESTION] `file.ts:123` - Description
### Final checklist
- [ ] Code readable and maintainable
- [ ] Sufficient tests
- [ ] No security issue
- [ ] Acceptable performance
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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -4 lines 321615a5d70e
- 1mo ago First seen · 160 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A cebc3e5edaa6
qa-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository christopherlouet/claude-base (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,314 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
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…
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
generic-static-code-reviewer
Review static site code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces pure HTML/CSS/JS standards, minimal page weight, mobile-first design. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing changes.
generic-code-reviewer
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Supports any tech stack - HTML/CSS/JS, React, TypeScript, Node.js, Python, NestJS, Next.js, and more. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
pr-review-expert
Tier: POWERFUL Category: Engineering Domain: Code Review / Quality Assurance.
tech-debt-tracker
Scan codebases for technical debt, score severity, track trends, and generate prioritized remediation plans. Use when users mention tech debt, code quality, refactoring priority, debt scoring, cleanup sprints, or code health assessment. Also use for legacy code modernization planning and maintenance cost estimation.