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 agentmods add skills/cwinvestments/memstack/code-reviewernpx skills add cwinvestments/memstack --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cwinvestments/memstackWhat 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 | $0.00076 | $0.02944 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00038 | $0.01472 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00589 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00294 |
Grade A, and why
memstack-development-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 2d 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 — 329 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
🔍 Code Reviewer — Reviewing code for issues and improvements...
Systematic code review across security, performance, maintainability, error handling, testing, and accessibility — with severity-ranked findings and specific fixes.
Activation
When this skill activates, output:
🔍 Code Reviewer — Scanning for issues...
Then execute the protocol below.
| Context | Status |
|---|---|
| User says "review code" or "code review" or "check my code" | ACTIVE |
| User says "audit this" or "review PR" or "review changes" | ACTIVE |
| User asks "what's wrong with this" about code | ACTIVE |
| Reviewing a specific file or set of changes | ACTIVE |
| User is writing code and hasn't asked for review | DORMANT |
| Discussing code architecture at a high level | DORMANT |
Anti-patterns
| Trap | Reality Check |
|---|---|
| "This looks fine to me" | Check every category systematically. Skimming misses auth gaps and N+1 queries. |
| "Style issues are important" | Linters handle style. Focus on logic, security, and correctness. |
| "I'll flag everything I see" | Noise kills reviews. Only report issues with real impact. Severity matters. |
| "The code works so it's fine" | Working does not mean correct. Race conditions, edge cases, and security holes all "work" until they don't. |
| "I'll suggest a complete rewrite" | Review what's there. Propose targeted fixes, not architectural overhauls. |
Severity Levels
| Level | Label | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔴 | Critical | Security vulnerability, data loss risk, crash in production | Fix before merge |
| 🟠 | High | Bug, incorrect behavior, significant performance issue | Fix this sprint |
| 🟡 | Medium | Code smell, minor performance issue, missing edge case | Fix when touching the file |
| 🔵 | Low | Style preference, minor improvement, documentation gap | Consider for future |
Protocol
Step 1: Security Review
Scan for security vulnerabilities — this category takes priority.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 329 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 5908fdbabe4a
memstack-development-code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository cwinvestments/memstack (417 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 2,944 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
ship
Ship workflow: detect + merge base branch, run tests, review diff, bump VERSION, update CHANGELOG, commit, push, and create a PR. Use for an explicit /ship invocation or when the user requests the full ship, release, or deploy workflow. For an ordinary commit, push, or pull-request publishing request, use the built-in…
plan-ceo-review
CEO/founder-mode plan review. Rethink the problem, find the 10-star product, challenge premises, expand scope when it creates a better product. Four modes: SCOPE EXPANSION (dream big), SELECTIVE EXPANSION (hold scope + cherry-pick expansions), HOLD SCOPE (maximum rigor), SCOPE REDUCTION (strip to essentials). Use when…
design-review
Designer's eye QA: finds visual inconsistency, spacing issues, hierarchy problems, AI slop patterns, and slow interactions — then fixes them. Iteratively fixes issues in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying with before/after screenshots. For plan-mode design review (before implementation), use…
plan-eng-review
Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, test coverage, performance. Walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations. Use when asked to "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan". Proactively suggest when…
autoplan
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skills from disk and runs them sequentially with auto-decisions using 6 decision principles. Surfaces taste decisions (close approaches, borderline scope, codex disagreements) at a final approval gate. One command, fully reviewed plan out. Use when…
retro
Weekly engineering retrospective. Analyzes commit history, work patterns, and code quality metrics with persistent history and trend tracking. Team-aware: breaks down per-person contributions with praise and growth areas. Use when asked to "weekly retro", "what did we ship", or "engineering retrospective". Proactively…