Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to DynamoDS/DynamoHome. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DynamoDS/DynamoHome/master/.claude/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DynamoDS/DynamoHomeWrote 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/dynamods/dynamohome/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dynamods/dynamohome/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dynamods/dynamohome/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/dynamods/dynamohome/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dynamods/dynamohome/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 | $0.00000 | $0.01138 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00455 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00114 |
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 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 — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Skills – DynamoHome
Review mindset
Focus on real problems: regressions, missing tests, broken localization, type safety gaps, Dynamo integration breakage. Do not request style changes or refactors for code not touched by the PR. Keep feedback concise and actionable.
Review process
1. Understand the scope
Read the PR description and list of changed files. Identify:
- Which module(s) are touched: Recent, Samples, Learning, Sidebar, Common, build, tests
- Whether it is a feature, bugfix, refactor, or dependency update
- Any Dynamo integration touchpoints (window globals, settings schema, output path)
2. Work through the checklist
See checklist below. Flag blockers as you go; note recommendations separately.
3. Verify test coverage
- New/modified components have unit tests in
tests/unit/ - Changed user flows have Playwright coverage
tests/e2e/*.spec.tsfiles contain no selectors or direct page actions
4. Check build integrity
Confirm (or ask the author to confirm):
npm run lint:check # Passes
npm run test:unit # Passes
npm run build # Dev bundle succeeds
npm run bundle # Production bundle succeeds (only for PRs touching webpack or build scripts)
5. Write structured feedback
See "How to give feedback" section below.
Checklist
TypeScript
- No new
anytypes introduced for props, state, or function parameters - No
// @ts-ignoreadded - New types are interfaces (not inline) if used in more than one place
- Existing
anyin legacy code (SettingsContext,utility.ts) is not flagged as new issues
React components
- Functional components only (no class components)
- Explicit prop interfaces defined
- CSS classes use
styles['class-name']from CSS Modules imports — no global classNames or inline styles - No new UI or state management libraries added to
package.json
Localization
- Every new user-visible string has a key in
src/locales/en.json - The same key exists in all 13 other locale files (
cs,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,pt-BR,ru,zh-Hans,zh-Hant) - Keys follow
module.element.descriptorformat - No hardcoded text in JSX (no raw string children, no
title=""without intl)
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 · 109 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 9a13e8d7c24e
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository DynamoDS/DynamoHome (3 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,138 tokens. 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.
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"…
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…
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…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…