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 encoreshao/encore-skills --skill review-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/encoreshao/encore-skillsWrote 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/encoreshao/encore-skills/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/encoreshao/encore-skills/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/encoreshao/encore-skills/review-code.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00026 | $0.00766 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00383 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00153 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00077 |
Grade A, and why
review-code scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Code
Self-review before opening an MR. A reviewer's time is expensive — don't waste it on things you could have caught yourself.
Input
# Local diff (self-review before opening MR)
git diff origin/main
# Review an existing MR via API (supports multiple GitLab servers)
GITLAB="$HOME/.claude/skills/gitlab-config/scripts/gitlab_api.py"
python $GITLAB get-mr <project> <mr_iid> # MR metadata + comments
python $GITLAB get-diff <project> <mr_iid> # unified diff of all changes
# Fallback with glab
glab mr view <number> --web
Review order
1. Does it actually solve the problem? (most important)
Go back to the issue. Read it again. Ask:
- Does my change fix the root cause identified in the analysis?
- Would the user who reported this issue confirm it's resolved?
- Can I trace from the issue → root cause → my fix and see a clear line?
If the answer is "probably" or "I think so" — that's not good enough. Go verify.
2. Is it the simplest solution?
Before checking anything else, ask: is there a simpler way to fix this?
A 10-line change that's hard to follow is worse than a 30-line change that's obvious. But a 30-line change where 20 lines are unnecessary is worse than both. Cut what isn't needed.
3. Security
- No secrets, tokens, or credentials in code or comments
- User input is validated before use — not after, not maybe
- SQL/queries use parameterized inputs
- Auth checks exist on any new endpoints or actions
- No
eval,exec, or dynamic code execution with user input
4. Correctness
- Edge cases covered: empty inputs, nulls, zero, large values
- Error cases handled — what happens when things fail?
- No silent failures (exceptions swallowed, errors ignored)
- Concurrency safe if relevant
5. Code quality
- Follows existing patterns — you're not the first person in this codebase
- No dead code, debug logs, or commented-out blocks left in
- Names describe intent, not implementation
- No unnecessary abstraction for a one-time use case
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 103 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 7433dae96b30
review-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository encoreshao/encore-skills (2 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 766 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-and-quality
Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high (production, security-sensitive logic, irreversible operations), or any time a confident output would be cheaper to verify now…
code-simplification
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
chinese-code-review
A Chinese-language code-review communication guide with templates and severity levels for review comments.
receiving-code-review
A guide for handling code-review feedback carefully. Code review is the process of checking proposed changes before they are accepted into a project.
requesting-code-review
A code-review procedure for checking completed work against its requirements before it spreads or is merged. A code reviewer is a person or agent who looks for defects and missing parts.