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 DDR187/cursor-howto --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DDR187/cursor-howtoWrote 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/ddr187/cursor-howto/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ddr187/cursor-howto/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ddr187/cursor-howto/code-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/ddr187/cursor-howto/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ddr187/cursor-howto/code-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 | $0.00016 | $0.00954 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00382 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
Code 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 2mo 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 — 196 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Skill
Overview
Automatically review code and provide improvement suggestions, covering:
- Code quality analysis
- Security vulnerability detection
- Performance issue identification
- Best practice recommendations
Review Items
1. Code Quality
| Check Item | Description |
|---|---|
| Naming Conventions | Are variable, function, and class names clear |
| Code Structure | Does it follow single responsibility principle |
| Comment Completeness | Are key logic sections commented |
| Code Duplication | Is there duplicate code |
| Complexity | Are functions too complex |
2. Security Check
| Check Item | Description |
|---|---|
| SQL Injection | Is parameterized query used |
| XSS Vulnerability | Is output properly escaped |
| Sensitive Information | Are keys or credentials exposed |
| Input Validation | Is user input validated |
| Permission Check | Is permission verification performed |
3. Performance Check
| Check Item | Description |
|---|---|
| Loop Optimization | Are there unnecessary operations in loops |
| Memory Leaks | Are resources properly released |
| Async Handling | Is async used correctly |
| Cache Usage | Is caching used reasonably |
4. Best Practices
| Check Item | Description |
|---|---|
| Error Handling | Are errors handled properly |
| Type Safety | Are type definitions used |
| Test Coverage | Are there corresponding tests |
| Documentation Complete | Is necessary documentation present |
Execution Steps
-
Analyze Code Structure
- Identify file type
- Parse code structure
- Extract key information
-
Run Check Rules
- Apply quality rules
- Apply security rules
- Apply performance rules
-
Generate Report
- Summarize issues
- Categorize by severity
- Provide fix suggestions
Output Format
# Code Review Report
## Overview
- File: {filename}
- Review Time: {timestamp}
- Total Issues: {total_issues}
## Issue List
### 🔴 High ({high_count})
| Location | Issue | Suggestion |
|----------|-------|------------|
| {location} | {issue} | {suggestion} |
### 🟡 Medium ({medium_count})
| Location | Issue | Suggestion |
|----------|-------|------------|
| {location} | {issue} | {suggestion} |
### 🟢 Low ({low_count})
| Location | Issue | Suggestion |
|----------|-------|------------|
| {location} | {issue} | {suggestion} |
## Statistics
| Category | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Security Issues | {security_count} |
| Performance Issues | {performance_count} |
| Code Quality | {quality_count} |
| Best Practices | {practice_count} |
## Recommendations
{recommendations}
What ships with it
2 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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 196 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A f4664b47c211
Code Review is a skill published in the GitHub repository DDR187/cursor-howto (2 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 954 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
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…
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…