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 dean0x/devflow --skill review-methodologygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dean0x/devflowWrote 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/dean0x/devflow/review-methodology)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dean0x/devflow/review-methodology"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dean0x/devflow/review-methodology/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/dean0x/devflow/review-methodology"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dean0x/devflow/review-methodology.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01009 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00404 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00202 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
review-methodology 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 7d 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 — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Methodology
The canonical review process for all Devflow review agents. Ensures consistent, fair, and actionable code reviews.
Iron Law
NEVER BLOCK FOR PRE-EXISTING ISSUES
Only issues in YOUR CHANGES can block a PR. Pre-existing issues are informational only. If you didn't add it, you don't own it. Fair reviews focus on the diff, not the codebase.
Core Philosophy
- Focus on changed lines first - Developer introduced these
- Context matters - Issues near changes should be fixed together
- Be fair - Don't block PRs for legacy code
- Be specific - Exact file:line with examples
- Be actionable - Clear fixes, not vague complaints
6-Step Review Process
Step 1: Identify Changed Lines
Get the diff to understand what changed. Identify base branch and extract changed files/lines.
Step 2: Categorize Issues
| Category | Scope | Priority | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Issues in Your Changes | Lines ADDED/MODIFIED in this branch | BLOCKING | Must fix before merge |
| 2. Issues in Code You Touched | Same file/function, but not your line | HIGH | Should fix while here |
| 3. Pre-existing Issues | Lines you didn't touch at all | INFORMATIONAL | Fix in separate PR |
Note: All categories and severities — including suggestions — are reported for resolution. Categories affect PR merge-blocking, not whether issues get resolved. The resolve workflow evaluates everything.
Step 3: Analyze with Domain Expertise
Apply your specialized lens (security, performance, tests, etc.) to each category:
- Category 1 - Maximum scrutiny, any issue blocks PR
- Category 2 - Should fix together with your changes
- Category 3 - Note but don't block, suggest separate issues
Step 4: Prioritize by Severity
| Severity | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Immediate risk, must fix | Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, breaking API changes |
| HIGH | Significant risk, should fix | Performance degradation, missing error handling |
| MEDIUM | Moderate risk, consider fixing | Style inconsistencies, missing documentation |
| LOW | Minor improvements | Naming suggestions, optional optimizations |
What ships with it
3 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.
- 7d ago Changed · -3 tokens per session 6090ededcbdc
- 1mo ago Changed d7f8a55fcc71
- 1mo ago First seen · 122 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 8f5bb1ba2b27
review-methodology is a skill published in the GitHub repository dean0x/devflow (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,009 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
pr-review-canvas
Create a OpenBitFun Canvas for reviewing a pull request, branch diff, or change set with Cursor-style diff cards, review maps, risk callouts, and focused reviewer flow. Use when the user asks for a PR review canvas, diff walkthrough, change-set overview, or visual review summary.
code-review
You are a senior code reviewer. You receive diffs via stdin.
review
Adversarial fresh-context review and risk check of an increment before it ships; every finding cites path:line and is re-verified. Use for "review", "qa", "quality check", "critique this".
tech-debt-ci-review
Codex adapter for deep technical-debt and CI-stability audits. Use when asked to find test theater, flaky tests, missing or mis-scoped tests, brittle CI/toolchain behavior, structural debt blocking green PRs, or a remediation order for opencode-swarm.