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 cnfeat/top-pm-skills --skill code-review-checklistgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cnfeat/top-pm-skillsWrote 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/cnfeat/top-pm-skills/code-review-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cnfeat/top-pm-skills/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cnfeat/top-pm-skills/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/cnfeat/top-pm-skills/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cnfeat/top-pm-skills/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 | $0.00076 | $0.01117 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00447 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00223 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00112 |
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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Checklist Skill
Produces a tailored code review checklist for a specific pull request — scaled to the language, type of change, and risk level. Not a generic template.
Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- Language and framework (e.g. TypeScript + React / Python + FastAPI / Go)
- Type of change (feature / bug fix / refactor / dependency upgrade / security patch / performance)
- Risk level (low / medium / high / critical)
- PR description (paste the description or link to the PR)
- Code or diff (optional — paste key changed files or a
git diff; significantly improves checklist specificity) - Author context (new starter / experienced / external contributor)
Output Format
Code Review: [PR Title or Reference]
1. PR Overview
Scope assessment: [Small / Medium / Large / Too large — should be split] Recommended review depth: [Skim / Standard / Deep dive] Estimated review time: [e.g. 20–30 min — use 5 min per 50 lines of diff as a rough guide]
2. Correctness Checks
Language-specific correctness checks — choose based on the language stated:
For TypeScript/JavaScript:
- Type definitions match actual usage
- No implicit
anyin non-test code - Async/await used consistently; no unhandled promises
- Null/undefined handling is explicit
For Python:
- Type hints present on public functions
- Exception handling is specific (no bare except)
- Resources are closed (context managers, with blocks)
For Go:
- Errors are handled or explicitly ignored with a comment
- Context propagation is correct
- Goroutine lifetimes are bounded
[Include only the section matching the stated language]
3. Change-Type-Specific Checks
For bug fixes:
- A test exists that would have caught this bug
- The fix addresses root cause, not symptom
- Related code paths checked for the same issue
For features:
- Acceptance criteria met
- Edge cases handled (empty, large, concurrent)
- Error paths tested, not just happy path
- Telemetry/logging added for debugging
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 · 123 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 14fb0b624c36
code-review-checklist is a skill published in the GitHub repository cnfeat/top-pm-skills (55 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 1,117 once invoked, about $0.0003 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"…
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…
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…
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…