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 edenfunf/promptc --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/edenfunf/promptcWrote 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/edenfunf/promptc/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/edenfunf/promptc/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/edenfunf/promptc/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/edenfunf/promptc/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/edenfunf/promptc/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 | $0.00011 | $0.00285 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00114 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00057 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00028 |
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.
What it actually says
Code Review Checklist
Read the diff once for shape, then again for correctness. Comment on intent, not just style.
Security
Always use parameterized queries for every database access. Never concatenate user-provided strings into SQL statements directly. This includes dynamic WHERE clauses, ORDER BY clauses, and table names.
Validate and sanitize all user-provided data at the system boundary before it enters business logic. Reject inputs that do not match the expected shape, range, or type.
Secrets must never be committed to the repository under any circumstance. If you see one in a diff, ask the author to revoke it before merging.
Tests
Every PR must add tests for new behavior. Tests should describe the behavior, not the implementation. Prefer integration tests over mocks when the integration is cheap.
Logging
Never log secrets, personally identifiable information, or full request or response bodies. Scrub sensitive fields at the logging boundary using a structured logger.
Boundary discipline
Treat any data that crossed a network or process boundary as untrusted until proven otherwise. Apply the same scrutiny to data from other internal services as you would to data from the public internet. The threat model assumes lateral movement; act accordingly across every service-to-service hop in the system.
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 · 44 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A c3ff21285f53
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository edenfunf/promptc (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 285 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
adversarial-review
Run a file-audited completion loop that requires two consecutive fresh-context subagents to independently try to disprove the same versioned, digest-checked task result. Use when the user invokes $adversarial-review, asks for two independent adversarial approvals, or requires a result to survive repeated attempts to…
refactor
Guides a refactor, cleanup, or restructure with the right decomposition. Use when the user asks to refactor, simplify, extract, or modernize code.
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
work-with-pr
Full PR lifecycle in a fresh task-owned git worktree: implement via the ulw-loop skill with mandatory evidence-bound manual QA → reviewer-readable English PR → verification loop (CI + Cubic, where Cubic is skipped only when its quota is exhausted) → merge by default → worktree cleanup. Decomposes one task into the…
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
tech-debt-audit
Thorough, file-cited technical debt audit across 9 dimensions using AST-grep (tree-sitter), grep, LSP, and language-native tooling. Produces TECHDEBTAUDIT.md with severity, effort estimates, and prioritized fixes. Use when asked for codebase health check, tech debt audit, architecture review, code quality assessment…