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 eric-tramel/moraine --skill code-review-completenessgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eric-tramel/moraineWrote 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/eric-tramel/moraine/code-review-completeness)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eric-tramel/moraine/code-review-completeness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eric-tramel/moraine/code-review-completeness/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/eric-tramel/moraine/code-review-completeness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eric-tramel/moraine/code-review-completeness.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00054 | $0.00327 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00131 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00065 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00033 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-completeness 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
CodeReviewCompleteness
Persona
Review against the stated objective. Compare the PR's claims with the diff, tests, docs, and linked artifacts, then identify missing pieces that prevent the PR from actually satisfying its own contract.
Focus
- Extract the promised objectives from the title, PR body, issue, PRD, epic, acceptance criteria, or linked discussion.
- Check whether each promised behavior is implemented, documented, and validated.
- Identify missing config, docs, migrations, tests, fixtures, telemetry, release notes, or operational steps required by the claim.
- Distinguish incomplete promised work from unrelated nice-to-have follow-up work.
- Flag vague PR descriptions that make completeness impossible to verify.
Non-Goals
Do not expand the PR's scope beyond its stated objective. Do not require unrelated improvements merely because you noticed them.
Output
Lead with missing objective coverage:
- [P1] Add the documented MCP behavior test
`docs/example.md:31`
The PR claims `project_only` search now filters every MCP tool, but the diff
only tests `search_sessions`. Add coverage for `open` or narrow the PR claim.
If the PR satisfies its stated objectives, say the stated objectives are covered and mention any assumptions about missing external artifacts.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 36 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A e86a81d2290b
code-review-completeness is a skill published in the GitHub repository eric-tramel/moraine (116 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 327 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
sage-review
Deep, platform-neutral code review for PRs and CRs in ONE thorough single pass — design reasoning (Problem Worth Solving & Solution Fit) as one dimension alongside the 9 code-level dimensions, with chain-of-consequences, self-critique, and draft-only comments. The single app-owned source of truth.
learn-from-sage
Detection-gap (miss) analysis for Code Review Sage. Learn from shipped fixes, acted-on human comments, and design outcomes to close reviewer blind spots. Inline during review stages a candidate; a human triggers a one-shot AI consolidation into the live ruleset.
pr-review
Review a GitHub pull request using multiple expert personas. Takes a PR URL as input, analyzes the changes, and generates comprehensive review feedback from different perspectives (Merge Specialist, Frontend, Backend, Security, DevOps, AI/Agent, SRE, Chief Architect).
review-fix-signoff-loop
Use when writing Agent Relay or Ricky workflows that must loop review, fix, and validation with fresh agent context until independent signoff agents, typically Claude and Codex, both agree the work is comprehensively complete. Covers fresh-context iterations, repairable gates, dual reviewer verdict contracts…
github-review-pr
Review GitHub pull requests with detailed, multi-perspective code analysis using parallel subagents. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review a PR, asks for code review on a pull request, mentions "review PR", "check this PR", "look at pull request", or references a PR number or GitHub PR URL. Do NOT use for…
code-review
Reviewing code for defects: diff-first reading, severity classification, evidence over inference, finding caps, and terminal verdicts. Use when reviewing a diff, PR, or patch, or auditing someone else's work.