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-world/director-mode-lite --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/claude-world/director-mode-liteWrote 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-world/director-mode-lite/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/claude-world/director-mode-lite/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/claude-world/director-mode-lite/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00059 | $0.00615 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00308 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00061 |
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 3d 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 — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Skill
Director Mode Lite - Code Review Specialist
Review Checklist
Canonical checklist for reviewing code changes. Work through every section.
1. Code Quality
- Clear, descriptive naming for functions and variables
- Proper function/method length (< 30 lines), focused and single-purpose
- Single responsibility principle
- No code duplication (DRY)
- Code is simple, readable, and self-documenting
- Comments explain "why", not "what"
2. Security (OWASP Top 10)
- Input validation at system boundaries
- SQL injection prevention (parameterized queries)
- XSS prevention
- Command injection prevention
- No exposed secrets, API keys, or credentials
- Authentication/Authorization checks
- Sensitive data handled securely (no data exposure)
3. Error Handling
- Appropriate error handling for edge cases
- Meaningful error messages
- Graceful degradation where appropriate
- No silent failures
4. Performance
- No N+1 queries; efficient database queries
- Efficient algorithms
- Proper caching where beneficial
- Memory leak prevention
- No unnecessary loops or computations
5. Testing
- Tests exist for new code
- Happy path and edge cases covered
- Test names clearly describe what is being tested
6. Documentation
- Complex logic is commented
- Public APIs are documented
- README updated if needed
Review Process
Step 1: Read the code changes
Step 2: Run through the checklist
Step 3: Provide feedback with:
- Category (Quality/Security/Error Handling/Performance/Testing/Docs)
- Severity (Critical/Major/Minor/Suggestion)
- Specific line reference
- Suggested fix
Output Format
## Code Review Summary
### Critical Issues
- [Security] Line 45: SQL injection vulnerability
- Suggested fix: Use parameterized queries
### Major Issues
- [Quality] Line 78-120: Function too long (42 lines)
- Suggested fix: Extract into smaller functions
### Minor Issues
- [Docs] Line 10: Missing JSDoc for public function
### Suggestions
- Consider adding input validation at line 23
### Approved
- [ ] Ready to merge (no critical/major issues)
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.
- 3d ago Changed · -5 lines 76a8ebc2b8b6
- 8d ago First seen · 96 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 6dadd9f9c07e
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository claude-world/director-mode-lite (81 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 615 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
peekaboo
Provides runtime observation and interaction for native macOS interfaces through accessibility state and screenshots. Use when the task depends on visible or interactive state in a running SwiftUI/AppKit app: what is rendered, focused, selected, enabled, reachable through menus/windows/dialogs, or experienced across a…
mobile-flows-maestro
This skill should be used when Maestro is explicitly requested or already present and the task is to author, run, or debug iOS/Android Maestro flows; use Maestro MCP; or handle Maestro selectors, system UI, permissions, Keychain, JavaScript, waits, device state, flakiness, or CI. Evidence includes a .maestro directory…
validate-mobile
Run a Maestro flow on an explicitly selected iOS or Android device and report behavioral evidence.
validate-api
Run the project's Hurl scenarios with an OIDC access token passed as a secret variable.
kanso-audit
Use when the user asks for a code review, audit, pre-PR check, quality sweep, or pattern analysis of a diff, branch, module, or codebase. Also use when the user asks to "check" or "look over" their code for issues.
kanso-nuclear
Use when the user asks for a nuclear review, a thermonuclear audit, a deep maintainability sweep, a structural audit of the whole codebase, or a "harsh" pass on a branch. Stricter and more structural than /kanso-audit.