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 agentmods add skills/di-sukharev/loop-code-review-skill/loop-code-reviewnpx skills add di-sukharev/loop-code-review-skill --skill loop-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/di-sukharev/loop-code-review-skillWhat 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 | $0.00055 | $0.01111 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00556 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00222 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00111 |
Grade A, and why
loop-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 2d 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 — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Loop Code Review
Review the current task as a handoff to another engineer. Independently test whether the change satisfies its requirements, is safe to modify, and has credible validation evidence.
Invariants
- Task scope: Review only task-owned active changes, including relevant untracked files and mixed-file hunks. Determine ownership from the current task and edits made during it, not from
git statusalone. Read neighboring code for context, but report only problems caused or worsened by the scoped change, including missed requirements. If ownership is ambiguous, ask the user. - Independent reviewer: Each review pass uses a fresh read-only agent without parent conversation history, reasoning, assumptions, or prior review discussion. In Codex, spawn it with
fork_turns: "none"; elsewhere use the equivalent fresh-context mechanism. - Stable state: Snapshot the scoped patch before review and compare it when the reviewer returns. Any relevant change makes the review stale and requires a fresh pass after validation. For unchanged state, use the same reviewer for clarification or reconsideration.
- Evidence over scores: Concrete findings and validation control the outcome. Scores only show progress and never create work, excuse findings, or gate acceptance.
- Worktree safety: Preserve unrelated changes. Do not stage, commit, reset, stash, push, or modify out-of-scope files unless the user explicitly asks.
Workflow
-
Prepare the scope.
- Inspect
git status --short, staged and unstaged diffs, and relevant untracked files. - Record included files or hunks and explicit exclusions.
- Prepare a factual task brief from the user's request and authoritative specifications. Include requirements and acceptance criteria, but not implementation rationale, suspected issues, or proposed fixes.
- If there are no task-owned active changes, report
no-changesand stop.
- Inspect
-
Validate the scoped state.
- Run the smallest meaningful non-destructive tests, typecheck, lint, build, or focused checks for the changed surface.
- Fix only failures caused by the scoped task. Record pre-existing, unrelated, flaky, or environmental failures as evidence or blockers without expanding scope.
- Record exact commands and factual outcomes. If meaningful validation is unavailable, explain why.
- Refresh the scope and snapshot after any command that changes the worktree.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 69 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 3a9f160031e6
loop-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository di-sukharev/loop-code-review-skill (25 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 1,111 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
agent-host-chat-contributions
Build and review cross-cutting agent-host chat behavior through lifecycle contributions. Use when adding turn lifecycle side effects, prompt or context injection, restored-history transformation, protocol-action observation, or when reviewing changes that add code to AgentSideEffects or AgentService.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.