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 Claude-Code-Community-Ireland/claude-code-resources --skill code-review-checklistgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Claude-Code-Community-Ireland/claude-code-resourcesWrote 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/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/code-review-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/code-review-checklist/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/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/code-review-checklist.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 | $0.00036 | $0.02559 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.01024 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00512 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00256 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-checklist 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 — 208 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Checklist
Review Philosophy
A code review is a collaborative conversation, not a gatekeeping exercise. The goals are:
- Catch bugs before they reach production.
- Share knowledge across the team.
- Maintain consistency in style and architecture.
- Improve the code incrementally.
Review the code, not the author. Be specific, be kind, and suggest alternatives rather than only pointing out problems.
Severity Classification
Classify every comment to set expectations:
| Severity | Meaning | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| Blocker | Bug, security flaw, data loss risk, or broken build. | Must fix before merge. |
| Major | Design issue, missing test, or significant maintainability concern. | Should fix before merge. |
| Minor | Style inconsistency, naming nit, or small improvement. | Fix if convenient; OK to defer. |
| Suggestion | Alternative approach, future improvement idea, or "did you consider...?" | No action required. |
Prefix comments with the severity: [Blocker], [Major], [Minor], [Suggestion].
1. Correctness Checklist
Does the code do what it is supposed to do?
- Requirements met. Does the change implement the described feature or fix the described bug completely?
- Edge cases handled. What happens with null, empty, zero, negative, very large, or unexpected inputs?
- Error handling. Are exceptions caught at the right level? Are error messages helpful? Do errors propagate correctly?
- Return values. Are all code paths returning the correct type and value? Are there missing returns?
- Off-by-one. Are loop bounds, array indices, and string slices correct? Inclusive vs. exclusive?
- Type safety. Are types correct? Are there implicit coercions that could cause surprises (e.g.,
"1" + 1)? - Concurrency. If concurrent, are shared resources protected? Are there potential race conditions or deadlocks?
- Data integrity. Are database transactions used where needed? Is there a risk of partial writes?
- Backward compatibility. Does this change break existing callers, APIs, or stored data?
- Idempotency. If the operation is retried, does it produce the same result?
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 · 208 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 221601f637c1
code-review-checklist is a skill published in the GitHub repository Claude-Code-Community-Ireland/claude-code-resources (11 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 2,559 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
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…