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 cuongtl1992/vibe-skills --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cuongtl1992/vibe-skillsWrote 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/cuongtl1992/vibe-skills/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cuongtl1992/vibe-skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cuongtl1992/vibe-skills/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/cuongtl1992/vibe-skills/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cuongtl1992/vibe-skills/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 | $0.00121 | $0.00736 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00048 | $0.00294 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00147 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00074 |
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 2mo 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
Systematic approach to reviewing code changes with consistent, actionable feedback.
Review Process
- Understand context — Read PR description, linked issues, related files
- Identify scope — What changed? What's the intent? What could break?
- Review by area — Apply relevant checklists from references/checklists.md
- Check architecture — Does it follow project patterns? See references/dotnet-patterns.md for .NET/Clean Architecture
- Provide feedback — Use comment format below, prioritize blocking issues first
Comment Format
Use prefixes to indicate priority:
| Prefix | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
[BLOCKING] |
Must fix before merge | Required |
[SUGGESTION] |
Improvement opportunity | Optional |
[QUESTION] |
Need clarification | Response needed |
[NIT] |
Minor style issue | Optional |
Structure each comment as:
[PREFIX] Brief issue description
Why: Explanation of the problem or risk
Fix: Suggested solution or alternative
Example:
[BLOCKING] SQL injection vulnerability in user search
Why: User input concatenated directly into query string
Fix: Use parameterized query
// Before
var sql = $"SELECT * FROM Users WHERE Name = '{input}'";
// After
var sql = "SELECT * FROM Users WHERE Name = @name";
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@name", input);
Review Priority Order
Review in this order to catch critical issues first:
- Security — Auth, injection, data exposure, multi-tenant isolation
- Correctness — Logic errors, edge cases, data integrity
- Performance — N+1 queries, missing indexes, resource leaks
- Architecture — SOLID violations, wrong layer, circular dependencies
- Code quality — Naming, duplication, readability
- Testing — Missing tests, flaky patterns
- Documentation — Missing or outdated docs
Feedback Principles
- Point to exact lines with specific alternatives
- Explain why something is problematic, not just what
- Focus on code, not the author
- Acknowledge good patterns when found
- Batch related issues into a single comment
- For large PRs: focus on architecture and security first, nits later
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 79 lines · 121 tokens per session scan A b5a2e21fe642
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository cuongtl1992/vibe-skills (11 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 121 tokens to every session and 736 once invoked, about $0.0005 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"…
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…
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…
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…