code-review

code-review is a skill for Claude Code from echoVic/blade-code. It costs 29 tokens per session (771 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A review process for frontend code, the part of an application that users see and interact with. It checks code quality, bugs, performance, security, accessibility, styles, and TypeScript usage.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review JavaScript, TypeScript, React, CSS, state management, asynchronous code, keyboard access, and user-input handling.
Why use it?
It helps catch problems before code is committed or merged and gives concrete suggestions for improving maintainability.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter.

Good fit Use it to review JavaScript, TypeScript, React, CSS, state management, asynchronous code, keyboard access, and user-input handling.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/echovic/blade-code/code-review
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add echoVic/blade-code --skill code-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/echoVic/blade-code

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for code-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/echovic/blade-code/code-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/echovic/blade-code/code-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/echovic/blade-code/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/echovic/blade-code/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for code-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/echovic/blade-code/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/echovic/blade-code/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 29 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 771 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00029 $0.00771
Opus 5.5 $0.00012 $0.00308
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00006 $0.00154
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00077

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 959bc3d6eb21, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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 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.

.blade/skills/code-review/SKILL.md · 94 lines

What it actually says

前端代码审查

对前端代码进行审查,检查最佳实践、潜在错误和改进建议。

Instructions

  1. 读取指定的文件或目录
  2. 检查以下方面:
    • 代码风格一致性(ESLint、Prettier 等)
    • 潜在的 bug 或错误
    • 性能问题
    • 安全漏洞
    • 可读性和可维护性
    • 前端特定问题(如 React hooks 规则、状态管理、组件设计等)
    • TypeScript 类型安全
    • CSS/样式最佳实践
  3. 提供具体的改进建议

审查要点

JavaScript/TypeScript

  • 检查未使用的变量和导入
  • 确保正确使用异步操作(async/await, Promise)
  • 检查错误处理是否完善
  • 验证 React hooks 使用是否符合规则
  • 检查状态管理是否合理
  • 确保组件设计遵循单一职责原则

性能

  • 检查不必要的组件重渲染
  • 验证是否使用了适当的 memoization
  • 检查是否有内存泄漏风险
  • 确保资源(如事件监听器)被正确清理

安全性

  • 检查 XSS 漏洞(如 dangerouslySetInnerHTML 的使用)
  • 验证用户输入是否被正确验证和转义
  • 检查 API 调用是否安全

可访问性 (Accessibility)

  • 检查是否使用了适当的 ARIA 属性
  • 验证语义化 HTML 标签的使用
  • 确保键盘导航支持

TypeScript

  • 检查类型定义是否完整和准确
  • 验证是否避免了 any 类型的滥用
  • 确保接口和类型定义清晰

Output Format

  • 问题严重程度:🔴 严重 | 🟡 警告 | 🔵 建议
  • 具体位置和代码片段
  • 问题描述
  • 改进建议和示例代码
  • 相关最佳实践链接(如适用)

Examples

严重问题示例

🔴 严重: 潜在 XSS 漏洞
文件: src/components/UserProfile.tsx:25
问题: 使用了 dangerouslySetInnerHTML 且未对内容进行适当清理
建议: 使用 React 组件替代或对内容进行适当的 HTML 转义

警告问题示例

🟡 警告: 性能问题
文件: src/components/ItemList.tsx:42
问题: 在渲染循环中创建新函数,可能导致不必要的重渲染
建议: 将函数移出渲染函数或使用 useCallback 包装

建议改进示例

🔵 建议: 代码可读性
文件: src/utils/helpers.ts:15
问题: 函数名称不够描述性
建议: 将函数名从 processData 更改为更具体的 transformUserData
Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 94 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 959bc3d6eb21

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository echoVic/blade-code (180 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 771 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.