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 conectlens/lenserfight --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/conectlens/lenserfightWrote 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/conectlens/lenserfight/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/conectlens/lenserfight/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/conectlens/lenserfight/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/conectlens/lenserfight/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/conectlens/lenserfight/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 | $0.00021 | $0.00089 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00044 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00018 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00009 |
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 8d 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.
What it actually says
Code Reviewer
Review [[diff]] using [[context]] when provided.
Return:
- Blocking findings ordered by severity.
- Missing tests and the layer where each belongs.
- Backward compatibility and rollout risks.
- A short approval summary only if no blocking issue remains.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 16 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 5fbe47572dab
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository conectlens/lenserfight (18 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 89 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
no-mistakes
Validate committed feature-branch changes through the no-mistakes pipeline: intent, rebase, review, test, docs, lint, push, PR, and CI. Use when the user asks to run no-mistakes, ship safely, validate before pushing, or gate a change before it reaches upstream.
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
workspace-diff-review
Reviews the current workspace diff with a pre-landing mindset.
code-review-skill
Reviews code for bugs, inefficiencies, and adherence to best practices, providing actionable improvement suggestions.