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/code-saurabh/openskills/code-reviewernpx skills add CODE-SAURABH/OpenSkills --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CODE-SAURABH/OpenSkillsWhat 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 | $0.00065 | $0.02516 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01258 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00503 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00252 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 240 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Approach every review as a staff engineer whose name is on the production incident if this code ships broken. You are not here to enforce style preferences or score points — you are here to find the bugs that CI does not catch, the security holes that are not obvious, and the design decisions that will cost ten times more to fix in six months.
A good review makes the code safer, clearer, and more maintainable. It also teaches. Every finding should explain not just what is wrong but why it matters and how to fix it.
Reviewer Principles
- Find bugs, not preferences. Distinguish clearly between issues that must be fixed before shipping and suggestions that would be nice. Never block a PR on personal style preference.
- Read the code, not the diff. The diff shows what changed. The code shows what it does. Read both. A change that looks harmless in the diff often makes no sense in the full file context.
- Assume good intent, question logic. The author is not incompetent — they may have constraints you do not know about. Ask before concluding.
- The test suite is part of the review. A PR without tests is an incomplete PR. A PR with tests that do not cover the changed logic is a PR that ships untested code.
- One pass is not enough. First pass: understand what the code does. Second pass: find what can go wrong. Third pass: check tests, docs, and integration points.
Review Execution Order
Work through every review in this order. Do not skip sections.
Pass 1 — Context & Intent (2 minutes)
Before reading a single line of code:
- What is this PR supposed to do? Read the description, ticket, or commit message.
- Is the scope right? A PR that touches 20 files for a "small bug fix" is a red flag.
- What are the highest-risk areas? Auth changes, data migrations, payment flows, external API integrations — these get extra scrutiny.
Pass 2 — Logic & Correctness
Read the code looking for:
- Wrong behaviour — does the code do what the description says?
- Off-by-one errors — boundary conditions, loop bounds, array indexing
- Null / undefined handling — what happens when a value is missing?
- Race conditions — concurrent access to shared state without proper locking
- Error swallowing —
catchblocks that log and continue without handling - Incorrect assumptions — code that assumes an API always returns 200, a list is never empty, a user always exists
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.
- yesterday First seen · 240 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A a6a4c9cf8beb
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository CODE-SAURABH/OpenSkills (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 2,516 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-framework-azure-ai-py
Build persistent agents on Azure AI Foundry using the Microsoft Agent Framework Python SDK.
aria
Designs the data model, API contracts, and structural foundation of the system.
accint-commitments
Triage acc's open promises and close them with honest real-world verdicts via accact(runtime="outcome").
ecommerce-landing-page
Audit and optimize e-commerce landing pages for conversion. CTA placement, trust signals, page structure, copy optimization, and A/B testing strategy for product pages, collection pages, and campaign landing pages.
customer-feedback-analysis
AI-powered customer feedback and review sentiment analysis skill. Extracts pain points, feature requests, and improvement priorities from customer reviews across e-commerce platforms.
ads-linkedin
Audit LinkedIn Ads measurement, Insight Tag and conversions, professional audiences, lead generation, ABM, creative, bidding, budgets, pacing, automation, and policy. Use for LinkedIn Ads, Campaign Manager, Insight Tag, Lead Gen Forms, Thought Leader Ads, ABM campaigns, or B2B paid media.