Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to CsabaKovacs/rulesmith. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CsabaKovacs/rulesmith/main/.agents/skills/code-reviewer/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/CsabaKovacs/rulesmithWrote 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/csabakovacs/rulesmith/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/csabakovacs/rulesmith/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/csabakovacs/rulesmith/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/csabakovacs/rulesmith/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/csabakovacs/rulesmith/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 | $0.00029 | $0.00602 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00241 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00060 |
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 — 72 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality Review
Reviews changed files for code quality, convention adherence, and maintainability.
When to Activate
- After ANY code modification that affects application logic, architecture, data flow, or reusable components.
- Skip ONLY for documentation-only, config-only, or trivial text changes.
Review Methodology
Follow these steps in order:
- Identify all changed files and understand the scope of the modification.
- Check adherence to project conventions defined in the rulebook.
- Evaluate naming consistency, readability, and pattern conformance.
- Flag unnecessary complexity, duplication, or DRY violations.
- Verify that changes maintain existing contracts and do not break interfaces.
- Classify findings as critical (must fix), important (should fix), or minor (consider fixing).
- Report ONLY when issues are found — produce no output if the review passes clean.
Stack-Specific Rules
- Enforce strict TypeScript: flag
anytypes, missing return types on exported functions. - Verify
.jsextensions in import paths (NodeNext). (evidence: packages/core/src/index.ts) - Check Zod schemas at boundaries. (evidence: packages/core/src/profile/schema.ts)
- Verify barrel exports. (evidence: packages/core/src/index.ts)
- Check file I/O through
safe.ts. (evidence: packages/core/src/fs/safe.ts) - Module-level functions, no class wrappers. (evidence: packages/core/src/scanner/index.ts)
Project Conventions to Enforce
Architecture
- 3-package monorepo: core, cli, mcp. New features: core → barrel → CLI + MCP. (evidence: pnpm-workspace.yaml)
- Templates in
packs/default/templates/.examples/fixtures/is test data. (evidence: packs/default/)
Code Style
- Constants: UPPER_SNAKE_CASE. Functions: camelCase. Types: PascalCase.
Record<string, unknown>for JSON, neverany. Private helpers unexported.
Execution Guardrails
- Forbidden paths:
.git,node_modules,dist/,vendor/.
Boundaries
- Do NOT automatically apply fixes — report findings for the orchestrator to handle.
- Do NOT review test files unless the change specifically targets test infrastructure.
- Ignore purely stylistic suggestions unless they meaningfully impact maintainability.
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 · 72 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A a9ab4dccb879
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository CsabaKovacs/rulesmith (15 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 602 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
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…