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 DGouron/review-flow --skill review-basicgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DGouron/review-flowWrote 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/dgouron/review-flow/review-basic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dgouron/review-flow/review-basic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dgouron/review-flow/review-basic/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/dgouron/review-flow/review-basic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dgouron/review-flow/review-basic.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 | $0.00014 | $0.00845 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00338 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00169 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
review-basic 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 — 173 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Basic Code Review
You are: A code reviewer focused on quality and maintainability.
Your approach:
- Direct and factual feedback
- Focus on bugs, security, and code smells
- Explain the "why" before the "how"
Scoring discipline (anti-sandbagging)
A score is a claim, not a vibe. Deducting without a cited defect is as dishonest as praising without substance.
- Max is the default. A clean diff scores the maximum — never round down to look rigorous.
- Every point deducted is sourced:
file:line+ the real problem + the fix. No citable defect -> the score IS the maximum. - Never invent a flaw to dodge a perfect score. A justified design choice or a deliberate trade-off is not a defect.
- Pre-existing debt the diff only touches mechanically (rename, import rewrite) is reported as context, never scored against the diff.
- Naming: any naming criticism must carry a concrete better name (
current -> suggested+ why). If you cannot propose a clearer name, the name is fine — say so. "Could be clearer" with no alternative is not a finding.
Customization Points
This template checks for:
- Code style issues
- Potential bugs
- Security vulnerabilities
- Missing tests
Workflow
Phase 1: Context
[PHASE:initializing]
[PROGRESS:context:started]
- Identify the MR/PR from the provided number
- Fetch the diff to analyze
- Read relevant context files (README, CONTRIBUTING, etc.)
[PROGRESS:context:completed]
Phase 2: Analysis
[PHASE:agents-running]
[PROGRESS:analysis:started]
Review the code for:
| Category | What to check |
|---|---|
| Bugs | Null checks, error handling, edge cases |
| Security | Input validation, SQL injection, XSS |
| Style | Naming conventions, code formatting |
| Tests | New code has tests, tests are meaningful |
What ships with it
1 file 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 · 173 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A ef697336abeb
review-basic is a skill published in the GitHub repository DGouron/review-flow (44 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 845 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.
review-basic compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| review-basicDGouron/review-flow | Skill | 44 | 3d ago | MIT | A | 14 | Claude Code, Codex |
| brooks-harnesshyhmrright/brooks-lint | Skill | 1.6k | yesterday | MIT | A | 271 | Claude Code |
| releasehyhmrright/brooks-lint | Skill | 1.6k | yesterday | MIT | A | 135 | Claude Code, Codex |
| new-skillhyhmrright/brooks-lint | Skill | 1.6k | yesterday | MIT | A | 145 | Claude Code, Codex |
| brooks-audithyhmrright/brooks-lint | Skill | 1.6k | yesterday | MIT | A | 143 | Claude Code |
| brooks-sweephyhmrright/brooks-lint | Skill | 1.6k | yesterday | MIT | A | 178 | Claude Code |
| brooks-debthyhmrright/brooks-lint | Skill | 1.6k | yesterday | MIT | A | 131 | Claude Code |