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 didacrios/ai-coding-protocols --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/didacrios/ai-coding-protocolsWrote 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/didacrios/ai-coding-protocols/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/didacrios/ai-coding-protocols/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/didacrios/ai-coding-protocols/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/didacrios/ai-coding-protocols/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/didacrios/ai-coding-protocols/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 | $0.00066 | $0.01600 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00640 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00320 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00160 |
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 20d 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 — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Emoji-Driven Code Review Protocol
A systematic review protocol for branches, commits, or pull requests. Every comment is prefixed with an emoji to signal intent and severity, producing structured, actionable feedback.
When to Activate
- Reviewing a pull request or merge request
- Reviewing a branch diff or set of commits
- Performing a code audit on existing code
- Providing structured feedback on code changes
Core Concepts
- Emoji-prefixed comments — every finding uses a fixed emoji to signal intent
- Only bugs and changes block merges — all other emojis are informational
- Recursive tracing before reviewing — trace consumers and dependencies of changed code
- Constructive feedback — every blocking issue includes a suggested fix
Detailed Guidance
Emoji Legend
| Emoji | Tag | Intent | Action Required? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐛 | bug |
Potential bug or incorrect behavior. Explain the failure scenario and suggest a fix. | Yes — Must fix |
| 🔧 | change |
Concrete change request. A concern or improvement that should be addressed before merging. | Yes — Should fix |
| ♻️ | refactor |
Refactoring suggestion. Include pseudo-code or a brief outline of the proposed simplification. | Yes — Consider |
| ❓ | question |
A question that needs an answer to continue the review. Provide enough context for a clear response. | Yes — Reply needed |
| 💭 | thought |
Thinking out loud. Sharing an alternative approach or walking through the code to verify understanding. | No |
| 🌱 | seed |
Planting a seed. An observation with larger implications worth exploring in a follow-up task. | No |
| 👍 | praise |
Highlight something well done. Positive reinforcement for good patterns, clean abstractions, or clever solutions. | No |
| ⛏ | nit |
Nitpick. Minor style or formatting preference. Not worth blocking a merge. | No |
| 📌 | out-of-scope |
A concern that falls outside the current change. Should be tracked as a separate issue or task. | No — Track separately |
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.
- 20d ago Changed · +3 lines · +46 tokens per session d2b867d0a2a0
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 6de2575ca8bb
- 2mo ago First seen · 131 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 8fefe4d515bf
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository didacrios/ai-coding-protocols (2 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 1,600 once invoked, about $0.0003 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"…
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…
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…