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 CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studioWrote 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/codephobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/codephobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/codephobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio/code-review/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/codephobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/codephobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio/code-review.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 | $0.00039 | $0.00633 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00253 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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 — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/code-review — Luau Code Review
Delegate to: lead-programmer (with exploit-security-specialist for security concerns)
Scope
Ask the user:
- "Which files should I review? (provide paths, a directory, or say 'recent changes')"
- For git-based review:
git diff HEAD~1orgit diff main...HEADstyle
Review Checklist
Structure & Style
- Module pattern:
local Module = {} ... return Module - Service caching at top:
local Players = game:GetService("Players") - Type annotations on public functions
- Naming conventions (PascalCase modules, camelCase functions, UPPER_SNAKE constants)
- No magic numbers (all constants externalized)
- No
print()left in production code (unless behind a debug flag)
Safety & Correctness
- No deprecated APIs:
wait(),spawn(),delay()— should usetask.wait(),task.spawn(),task.defer() - All DataStore/HttpService/MarketplaceService calls in
pcall - Retry logic for transient failures
- No infinite loops without yield
- Proper cleanup (Trove/Maid/manual disconnection)
Server Authority (Security)
- No client-side game state mutations
- All RemoteEvent handlers validate argument types
- All RemoteEvent handlers validate argument ranges
- Rate limiting on player-triggered remotes
- No RemoteFunction invoked client → server (server hang risk)
- Purchase processing via
MarketplaceService.ProcessReceiptserver-side
Performance
- No expensive work per Heartbeat without throttling
- Cached references (not repeated
workspace.Xlookups) - No string concatenation in loops (use
table.concat) - Table allocations minimized in hot paths
- Connections disconnected on cleanup
Architecture
- No circular module dependencies
- Clear separation: shared / server / client
- Shared modules don't leak server secrets
- Config values externalized to dedicated config module
Output Format
# Code Review: [Scope]
## Summary
- Files reviewed: X
- Critical issues: X
- Important issues: X
- Suggestions: X
## Critical (must fix before merge)
1. **[filepath:line]**: [issue]
- Reason: [why it's critical]
- Fix: [specific code change]
## Important
...
## Suggestions
...
## Kudos
- [Things done well — reinforce good patterns]
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 · 80 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 445cf4edde21
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio (15 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 633 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
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…