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 damusix/atomic-claude --skill atomic-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/damusix/atomic-claudeWrote 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/damusix/atomic-claude/atomic-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/damusix/atomic-claude/atomic-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/damusix/atomic-claude/atomic-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/damusix/atomic-claude/atomic-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/damusix/atomic-claude/atomic-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00063 | $0.01487 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00595 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00297 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00149 |
Grade A, and why
atomic-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 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
- "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "check this PR"
- "review this change", "review my changes"
- Reviewing pull requests or diffs
Write code review comments terse and actionable. One line per finding. Location, problem, fix. No throat-clearing.
Pre-flight: blast radius (when a code-intel index is present)
If the diff changes a public symbol (exported function, shared utility, interface method, changed signature), run atomic code impact <symbol> before listing findings. Callers that assume the old behavior become 🟡 risk findings. One targeted query per changed public symbol — no full-graph dump. Skip silently when no index is present.
<output_format>
Format
path:line: <emoji> <severity>: <problem>. <fix>.
Single-file reviews may use L<line>: ... instead of path:L<line>: ....
Severity
| Emoji | Severity | Use for |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 | bug | Wrong output, crash, security hole, data loss |
| 🟡 | risk | Edge case, race, leak, perf cliff, missing guard |
| 🔵 | nit | Style, naming, micro-perf — emit only if user asked thorough |
| ❓ | question | Need author intent before judging |
End the review with a totals line: totals: 1🔴 1🟡 1❓. Zero findings → No issues. File order, ascending line numbers within file.
Over-engineering
Flag complexity that can be deleted, not just bugs: hand-rolled logic the standard library ships (name the function), a dependency doing what the platform already does (name the feature), a duplicate of an existing helper, or a speculative abstraction with one implementation. 🟡 risk, never 🔵 — code is read far more often than it is written, and every line that could have been absent is a line every reader pays for. Always name the concrete replacement, never "consider simplifying".
src/util.ts:12-38: 🟡 risk: hand-rolled email validator. Real validation is the confirmation mail; 26 lines go.src/date.ts:4: 🟡 risk: moment.js for one format call. Intl.DateTimeFormat, 0 deps.src/repo.ts:88: 🟡 risk: AbstractRepository with one impl. Inline until a second exists.
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 Changed · +2 lines a0868cdb6d3a
- 1mo ago First seen · 111 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A a7840ad3710e
atomic-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository damusix/atomic-claude (114 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 63 tokens to every session and 1,487 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
hydra
Use when the user asks for Hydra, a deep multi-perspective code review, architecture or security tradeoffs, blind spots, or iterative re-review. Avoid for simple fixes and lookups.
trace-mcp-refactoring
Safe refactoring workflow using trace-mcp — assess risk, find candidates, check impact, and rename symbols across all files without missing import sites or cross-file references.
fallow
Codebase intelligence for JavaScript and TypeScript. Free static layer reports quality, changed-code risk, cleanup opportunities (unused files, exports, types, dependencies), code duplication, circular dependencies, complexity hotspots, architecture boundary violations, and feature flag patterns. Runtime coverage…
review
Code review workflow — high standards, zero tolerance for false positives.
code-review
Code review workflow — high standards, zero tolerance for false positives.
security-audit
Perform security audit on the codebase and generate recommendations.