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 | $0.00060 | $0.00368 |
| Sonnet 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 9d 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.
- 9d 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 (10 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 121 tokens to every session and 736 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…