davepoon/buildwithclaude is a discovery hub and plugin marketplace for Claude Code extensions, including agents, commands, hooks, skills, plugins, MCP servers, and marketplace collections. Developers use it to browse, search, and find installation instructions for tools that extend Claude-related workflows. Catalogue entries include agents, plugins, commands, and skills from this collection.
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 davepoon/buildwithclaude --skill review-findingsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/davepoon/buildwithclaudeWrote 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/davepoon/buildwithclaude/review-findings)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/davepoon/buildwithclaude/review-findings"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/davepoon/buildwithclaude/review-findings/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/davepoon/buildwithclaude/review-findings"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/davepoon/buildwithclaude/review-findings.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 | $0.00043 | $0.00378 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00189 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
review-findings 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 11d 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.
What it actually says
Review Findings
Addresses and fixes QA findings using the Forja (Dev) agent.
When to Use This Skill
- After receiving a code review from Centinela (QA)
- When a review report has findings that need to be addressed
- Fixing critical and warning issues before re-verification
What This Skill Does
- Runs the SIGN IN checklist
- Reads the review report and understands each finding's root cause
- Plans fix order: Critical first, then Warnings
- Implements fixes with updated tests for each finding
- Scans for dead code after all fixes
- Runs Implementation Complete and Pre-Delivery checklists (TIME OUT)
- Verifies every Critical finding addressed, every Warning addressed or deferred with justification
- Prepares a fix report for QA re-verification
How to Use
Basic Usage
/review-findings
With Specific Review
/review-findings docs/reviews/user-auth-review.md
Example
User: /review-findings docs/reviews/webhook-system-review.md
Output:
- All Critical findings fixed with tests
- All Warning findings fixed or explicitly deferred with justification
- Fix report documenting what was changed and why
- Ready for QA re-verification
Tips
- If no review is specified, the most recent review in
docs/reviews/is used - The agent understands root causes before writing any fix
- Conflicting fixes are identified and planned around during the pre-fix phase
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 57 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 4c3825a14287
review-findings is a skill published in the GitHub repository davepoon/buildwithclaude (3,436 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 378 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
consult-codex
Dual-AI code analysis pairing OpenAI Codex with Claude code-searcher — the lightest consult variant, two citation-verified perspectives. Use for a quick second opinion on a code question.
00-async-dev
Drive the async-dev pipeline from one entry point, whether setup, run, or review. Use when the user wants to install async dev, run a ready issue, or address PR review comments, or on a webhook trigger. Not for plain status checks.
01-sdlc
Autonomously orchestrates a request from framing to a draft pull request, isolating implementation, independent review, and final outcome challenge. Use when the user wants to deliver a change end to end. Not for running one development step.
code-review
Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests.
05-review
Review a diff read-only on three axes, code, behavior versus the plan, and relevancy, into one verdict report. Use before shipping a change. Not for fixing findings or auditing a codebase.
02-challenge
Rethink just-completed work against an agreed plan, classifying findings as deal-breaker, suggestion, or correct, with a confidence score. Use to challenge or critically review recent work. Not for line-by-line style review or writing code.