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 CODE-SAURABH/OpenSkills --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CODE-SAURABH/OpenSkillsWrote 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/code-saurabh/openskills/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/code-saurabh/openskills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/code-saurabh/openskills/code-reviewer/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/code-saurabh/openskills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/code-saurabh/openskills/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00065 | $0.02516 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.01006 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 240 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A a6a4c9cf8beb
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository CODE-SAURABH/OpenSkills (3 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 2,516 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
build-review-loop
Use when the user says 'review loop N times', 'build then review', 'fix and re-review', or wants an iterative quality gate with different models building vs reviewing. Orchestrates N rounds of build-review-fix using Cursor CLI for build and Codex or another model for review.
code-review
Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests.
comprehensive-review
Comprehensive code review using parallel specialized subagents. If a PR URL is provided, fetches PR details and can post comments. If no PR is provided, reviews the diff between the current branch and its base branch plus any uncommitted changes. CRITICAL: this skill is costly, don't use it unless user explicitly…
zen-comprehensive-review
Orchestrate a multi-model code review: spawn 3 review subagents, merge findings. In PR mode, posts GitHub PR comments with reactions. In local mode, outputs findings directly. CRITICAL: this skill is costly, don't use it unless user explicitly requested to use it.
zen-review
Expert code reviewer. Analyze PR changes for correctness, security, performance, and quality. Returns findings as JSON. CRITICAL: this skill is costly, don't use it unless user explicitly requested to use it.
cross-review
Delegate code review to a subagent running a specific model. Use ONLY when user explicitly names a model to review changes ("review with opus", "use sonnet to review", "review with gemini"). The root agent reconstructs changes from conversation history and spawns a subagent with the code-review skill using the…