Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to d4551/piratebao. 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/d4551/piratebao/main/.opencode/skills/piratebao-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/d4551/piratebaoWrote 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/d4551/piratebao/piratebao-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/d4551/piratebao/piratebao-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/d4551/piratebao/piratebao-review/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/d4551/piratebao/piratebao-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/d4551/piratebao/piratebao-review.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 | $0.00073 | $0.00670 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00335 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
piratebao-review 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 12d 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.
This is a copy
98% identical to caveman-review — 10 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.
Rules
Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. — or <file>:L<line>: ... when reviewing multi-file diffs.
Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):
🔴 bug:— broken behavior, will cause incident🟡 risk:— works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)🔵 nit:— style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore❓ q:— genuine question, not a suggestion
Drop:
- "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."
- "This is just a suggestion but..." — use
nit:instead - "Great work!", "Looks good overall but..." — say it once at the top, not per comment
- Restating what the line does — the reviewer can read the diff
- Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe", "I think") — if unsure use
q:
Keep:
- Exact line numbers
- Exact symbol/function/variable names in backticks
- Concrete fix, not "consider refactoring this"
- The why if the fix isn't obvious from the problem statement
Examples
❌ "I noticed that on line 42 you're not checking if the user object is null before accessing the email property. This could potentially cause a crash if the user is not found in the database. You might want to add a null check here."
✅ L42: 🔴 bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.
❌ "It looks like this function is doing a lot of things and might benefit from being broken up into smaller functions for readability."
✅ L88-140: 🔵 nit: 50-line fn does 4 things. Extract validate/normalize/persist.
❌ "Have you considered what happens if the API returns a 429? I think we should probably handle that case."
✅ L23: 🟡 risk: no retry on 429. Wrap in withBackoff(3).
Auto-Clarity
Drop terse mode for: security findings (CVE-class bugs need brig explanation + reference), architectural disagreements (need rationale, not just a one-liner), and onboarding contexts where the author is new and needs the "why". In those cases write a normal paragraph, then resume terse for the rest.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 55 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A dfcfbc5241f0
piratebao-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository d4551/piratebao (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 670 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to caveman-review, differing in 10 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
meta-reviewing-ai-reviewing
AI integration review patterns. Use when reviewing model API calls, prompt construction, LLM output handling, RAG pipelines, and tool-calling code. Covers prompt-injection call-chain tracing, output validation, token budgets, retry/timeout handling, streaming, and key/PII exposure.
meta-reviewing-api-reviewing
Backend code review patterns. Use when reviewing API routes, database operations, auth middleware, and server utilities. Covers injection, boundary validation, authorization coverage, secret/PII exposure, error leakage, and query patterns.
meta-reviewing-cli-reviewing
CLI code review patterns. Use when reviewing CLI applications built with Commander.js, @clack/prompts, picocolors. Covers exit codes, signal handling, error messages, user experience, testing adequacy.
meta-reviewing-infra-reviewing
Infrastructure code review patterns. Use when reviewing CI/CD workflows, Dockerfiles, deployment configs, and IaC. Covers supply-chain pinning, secret exposure, container hygiene, least-privilege permissions, and deployment safety.
meta-reviewing-web-reviewing
UI component review patterns. Use when reviewing React components, hooks, props, state, styling, and accessibility. Covers rules of hooks, effect cleanup, render performance, list keys, keyboard and ARIA patterns.
meta-reviewing-reviewing
Code review patterns, feedback principles. Use when reviewing PRs, implementations, or making approval/rejection decisions. Covers self-correction, progress tracking, feedback principles, severity levels.