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 duthaho/claudekit --skill code-review-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/duthaho/claudekitWrote 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/duthaho/claudekit/code-review-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/duthaho/claudekit/code-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duthaho/claudekit/code-review-loop/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/duthaho/claudekit/code-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duthaho/claudekit/code-review-loop.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 38 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00079 | $0.02841 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.01136 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00568 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00284 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-loop 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 — 212 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Loop
Overview
End-to-end code review etiquette. Covers the requesting side (preparing a PR
that's reviewable) and the receiving side (acting on feedback). The skill exists
because most code review failures aren't disagreement — they're noise. Reviewers
get PRs they can't reasonably review (1500 lines, mixed concerns, no
description) and authors get feedback they don't engage with seriously
(silent dismissals, "fixed" without explanation, defensive replies). The skill
enforces structure on both ends and dispatches claudekit:code-reviewer /
claudekit:security-auditor agents on the diff. Used after verification-gate,
before merge.
When to Use
- Opening a PR for review
- Responding to review comments on a PR you authored
- Reviewing a PR another engineer authored (the skill applies symmetrically)
- Re-requesting review after addressing feedback
When NOT to Use
- Quick fixes via direct push to a branch nobody else uses (no review needed)
- A PR is already merged and you have post-merge feedback (file a follow-up issue, don't re-litigate)
- Reviewing infra/config that the project's policy explicitly auto-approves
Process
Step 1: Prepare the PR (requesting side)
Goal: A reviewable PR.
Inputs: A branch with verified changes (you've run verification-gate).
Actions:
- The PR title is one line, describing what changed. Not "Updates" or "Fix stuff." Verb-led: "Add idempotency key to charge endpoint."
- The PR description has these sections:
- What: 1-3 sentences naming the change.
- Why: the spec link, the ticket, the bug being fixed.
- How: the design choice, especially if non-obvious. Cite the plan if one exists.
- Verification: the output from
verification-gate(paste or link). - Risk + rollback: if the change has any risk, name it and the rollback procedure.
- Check the diff size. If >400 lines (excluding tests, generated files, lockfiles), consider splitting the PR. Reviewers won't read the whole thing carefully; they'll skim, miss issues, and approve.
- Tag the right reviewers. For sensitive paths (auth, payments, data), tag the security-savvy reviewer too.
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 · 212 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A 5351f8b04c7a
code-review-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository duthaho/claudekit (97 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 2,841 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-triage
4-phase PR backlog management with audit, deep code review, validated comments, and optional worktree setup. Use when triaging pull requests, catching up on pending code reviews, or managing a backlog of open PRs. Args: 'all' to review all, PR numbers to focus (e.g. '42 57'), 'en'/'fr' for language, no arg = audit…
review-pr
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.
pr
Analyze changes, detect scope issues, and create a well-structured PR.
validate-changes
Evaluate staged changes using LLM-as-a-Judge before committing.
nav-pilot
Dispatch a Navigator task doc to Pilot as a labeled GitHub issue. Use when user says "dispatch TASK-XX to Pilot", "hand off to Pilot", "send to Pilot", or "queue for Pilot". One-way handoff (Navigator authors the spec, Pilot executes autonomously).
audit-agents-skills
Audit Claude Code agents, skills, and commands for quality and production readiness. Use when evaluating skill quality, checking production readiness scores, or comparing agents against best-practice templates.