review

review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from eigent-ai/agent-skills. It costs 51 tokens per session (398 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A code-review guide for checking changed code for bugs, security problems, slow behavior, unclear code, maintenance risks, and missing tests.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it for pull-request reviews, security checks, pre-merge checks, production-readiness reviews, and deciding whether a change should ship.
Why use it?
It helps find problems before code is merged or released, with findings ordered by seriousness and tied to specific files and lines when possible.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it for pull-request reviews, security checks, pre-merge checks, production-readiness reviews, and deciding whether a change should ship.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/eigent-ai/agent-skills/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 eigent-ai/agent-skills --skill review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eigent-ai/agent-skills

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

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 review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eigent-ai/agent-skills/review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/eigent-ai/agent-skills/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eigent-ai/agent-skills/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eigent-ai/agent-skills/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 51 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 398 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.
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 $0.00051 $0.00398
Opus 5 $0.00026 $0.00199
Sonnet 5 $0.00010 $0.00080
Haiku 4.5 $0.00005 $0.00040

Measured 8d ago against content hash 7cfe14d1cee4, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-08, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

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 8d 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.

skills/coding-agents-and-ides/review/SKILL.md · 42 lines

What it actually says

Review

Overview

Use this skill for code-review work. Prioritize bugs, behavioral regressions, security risks, performance issues, and missing tests. Findings come first, ordered by severity, with concrete file and line references whenever possible.

Workflow

  1. Inspect the requested diff, files, branch, or pull request context.
  2. Review across five axes:
    • Correctness.
    • Security.
    • Performance.
    • Readability.
    • Maintainability.
  3. Check whether tests cover the changed behavior and important failure modes.
  4. Keep feedback specific and actionable; avoid broad style commentary unless it affects maintainability or correctness.
  5. Flag issues by severity:
    • Blocking: should not ship.
    • High: likely bug, security issue, or serious regression.
    • Medium: meaningful risk or missing coverage.
    • Low: small maintainability or clarity improvement.
  6. If no issues are found, say so clearly and mention residual test gaps or assumptions.

Output Pattern

  1. Findings first, ordered by severity.
  2. Open questions or assumptions.
  3. Brief change summary only after findings.
  4. Tests or verification reviewed.

Example Prompts

  • /review - Review this pull request. Flag anything that affects security, performance, or will be hard to maintain in 6 months. Be direct about blocking issues.
  • /review - Audit this API endpoint handler for security issues. Check for injection risks, missing auth checks, improper error handling, and data exposure.
  • /review - This is going to production tomorrow. Do a final review focused only on breaking changes, regressions, and anything that could cause an incident.
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. 8d ago First seen · 42 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 7cfe14d1cee4

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a skill published in the GitHub repository eigent-ai/agent-skills (19 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 398 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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.