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 edimuj/tokenlean --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/edimuj/tokenleanWrote 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/edimuj/tokenlean/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/edimuj/tokenlean/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/edimuj/tokenlean/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/edimuj/tokenlean/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/edimuj/tokenlean/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 | $0.00057 | $0.00653 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00261 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00131 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00065 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Review code changes thoroughly while reading as little raw code as possible.
Workflow
Changes → Scope check → Context gathering → Deep review → Output
1. Determine scope
# For a PR or branch
tl pr
# For uncommitted work
tl diff
# For a specific commit range
tl diff <ref>
If the diff is large (>20 files), focus on the highest-impact files first.
2. Gather context on changed files
For each changed file:
tl parallel \
"impact=tl impact <file>" \
"symbols=tl symbols <file>" \
"complexity=tl complexity <file>"
For files with high impact (many dependents), also run:
tl exports <file> # Was the public API changed? Are exports still compatible?
3. Review the code
Now read the actual diff. You already know:
- What changed (from step 1)
- What depends on it (from
tl impact) - The shape of the code (from
tl symbols) - Complexity hotspots (from
tl complexity)
Use tl snippet <function> <file> to read specific changed functions rather than full files.
4. Check for common issues
tl guard # Secrets, stale TODOs, unused exports, circular deps
5. Output format
Structure the review as:
## Summary
One-paragraph assessment: what this change does and overall quality.
## Issues
- **[severity]** file:line — description and suggestion
## Observations
- Non-blocking notes, style comments, questions for the author
## Verdict
APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / NEEDS DISCUSSION
Severity levels: critical (bugs, security), warning (potential problems), nit (style, minor).
Decision tree: how deep to go
File changed → How many dependents? (tl impact)
├─ 0 dependents → Light review (just read the diff)
├─ 1-5 dependents → Standard review (symbols + diff)
└─ 6+ dependents → Deep review (symbols + exports + snippet each changed function)
Tips
- Use
tl parallelto gather context on multiple changed files simultaneously - For test files, skip
tl impact(nothing depends on tests) tl symbols -jgives JSON output if you need structured data- If a file is under 150 lines, just read it directly — tokenlean overhead isn't worth it
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 · 100 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A a5cc94672a0a
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository edimuj/tokenlean (13 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 653 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
deep-module-refactor
Explore a codebase to find opportunities for architectural improvement, focusing on making the codebase more testable by deepening shallow modules. Use when user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more AI-navigable.
secure-code-review
Systematically reviews code for SQL injection, XSS, SSRF, broken access control, cryptographic failures, and other common OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, providing vulnerable code examples and ready-to-use remediation guidance. Trigger this skill when users ask for a security review, vulnerability scan, or penetration…
witness
Independently witness that an Allium loop's convergence claim is true and was reached honestly. Use when the user wants to verify a loop's self-report, confirm tests really pass and no generated test was weakened, produce a convergence certificate or witness record, gate CI on a trustworthy signal, or check that an…
agentbro-pr-merge
Use when reviewing, fixing CI for, approving workflows for, or merging AgentBro pull requests into dev/main, especially external contributor PRs where contributor attribution matters.
graph-it-live
Analyze code dependencies, call graphs, and architecture using the graph-it CLI. Use this skill whenever the user wants to understand how their code is connected — even if they don't say "dependency graph" explicitly. Trigger for: "what calls this function", "who uses this class", "is it safe to delete X", "what…
pr-review
Review pull requests and Git diffs with Graph-It-Live risk, breaking-change, dependency-impact, cycle, unused-export, and test-candidate evidence. Use when asked to review a PR, inspect a diff, assess merge risk, check a branch before merging, create a Graph-It-Live review gate, or explain review-pr results. Trigger…