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 devoxx/DevoxxGenieIDEAPlugin --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/devoxx/DevoxxGenieIDEAPluginWrote 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/devoxx/devoxxgenieideaplugin/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/devoxx/devoxxgenieideaplugin/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/devoxx/devoxxgenieideaplugin/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/devoxx/devoxxgenieideaplugin/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/devoxx/devoxxgenieideaplugin/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 | $0.00090 | $0.00542 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00217 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
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 — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Overview
Review the current local changes or the implementation tied to a backlog task id and report concrete findings, not a changelog. Treat this as a code review unless the user explicitly asks for edits.
Workflow
-
Resolve the review target. If the prompt includes a backlog task id, locate the task markdown in
backlog/tasks/first, thenbacklog/completed/if needed. Read the description, acceptance criteria, and referenced files. If no task id is given, start fromgit status --shortand review the current local changes directly. -
Build review scope from local context. Check
git status --short, inspect the diff for files related to the task, and read surrounding code where behavior is affected. Preferrgand targetedgit diff -- <path>over broad scans. -
Review for defects and regressions. Prioritize:
- broken behavior versus the task intent
- stale callers or UI paths left behind after refactors
- contract mismatches across main/preload/renderer/shared code
- silent failure handling and misleading fallback behavior
- missing or weak tests for the changed behavior
- unnecessary performance regressions or duplicate work
- Verify when useful. Run focused tests for the touched area if they are available and cheap. Mention clearly when verification is blocked or when broader typecheck/test failures are unrelated.
Output
Report findings first, ordered by severity. For each finding:
- state the severity
- describe the bug/risk or improvement
- include clickable file references with line numbers when available
- explain the user-visible or maintenance impact briefly
After findings, include:
- open questions or assumptions if any
- a brief note on verification performed
If no findings are discovered, say that explicitly and mention residual risk or missing coverage.
Prompt Shape
Interpret prompts like review, review current changes, or review the changes from git status as a request to review the current working tree. Interpret prompts like task-56, review task-56, or review task-56 and report any issues/bugs or possible improvements as a review of the local changes associated with that task.
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 First seen · 49 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A 7bbb2b8622d2
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository devoxx/DevoxxGenieIDEAPlugin (685 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 542 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
code-review-expert
Expert-level code review focusing on quality, security, performance, and maintainability. Use this skill for conducting thorough code reviews, identifying issues, and providing constructive feedback.
code-review-workflow
Review a change in a fixed order — context, correctness, security, then style — and write feedback that is actionable and ranked by severity. Use when the user asks for a code review, wants a pull request or diff reviewed before merge, asks whether a change is safe to ship, or when the task involves reviewing a patch…
refactoring-workflow
Improve the structure of existing code without changing its behaviour, in small verified steps under a green test suite. Use when the user asks to refactor, clean up, restructure or simplify code, wants to reduce duplication or coupling, is preparing a codebase for a feature it cannot currently accommodate, or when…
audit-expert
Expert-level security auditing, compliance, code review, and vulnerability assessment. Use when the user mentions compliance, security review, code review, vulnerability assessment, SOC 2, or GDPR, or when the task involves Audit Types, Audit Frameworks, Audit Process, or Authentication Review.
ralphctl-code-review-and-quality
Multi-phase code-quality skill — primary frame for the evaluator role in Execute, the architecture axis in Plan, and correctness/readability in Refine. Multi-axis code review with severity vocabulary. Use when acting as the evaluator assessing a generator's output, and when reviewing any change before signalling…
claude-friends
Ask AIs from other families to review something before you commit to it. User-triggered, never automatic. Fires when the user signals uncertainty or asks for another perspective: 'ask a friend', 'second opinion', 'sanity check', 'cross-check', 'am I missing something', 'stress-test this', 'critique this', 'devil's…