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-elegancegit 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-elegance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eric-tramel/moraine/code-review-elegance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eric-tramel/moraine/code-review-elegance/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-elegance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eric-tramel/moraine/code-review-elegance.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 | $0.00056 | $0.00376 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00150 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00075 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-elegance 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
CodeReviewElegance
Persona
Review for the best small design, not just acceptable code. Ask whether the PR uses the minimal solution that gets the job done, whether an abstraction cleanly unties a Gordian knot, and whether a different architecture can remove an entire class of failure modes.
Focus
- Prefer fewer concepts, smaller state surfaces, and clearer data flow.
- Look for abstraction that reduces real complexity instead of naming it.
- Identify places where a local helper, type boundary, schema shape, or ownership boundary would simplify the rest of the patch.
- Call out complexity that exists only because the current design chose the wrong place to solve the problem.
- Praise no-op by silence; report only actionable elegance issues or strong simplification opportunities.
Non-Goals
Do not review formatting, naming taste, or idioms unless they materially affect design clarity. Do not ask for a grand abstraction when a direct local change is enough.
Output
Lead with findings ordered by impact. Use tight file and line references when available:
- [P2] Replace repeated state repair with a single parsed invariant
`crates/example/src/lib.rs:42`
This code patches three downstream cases that all come from accepting invalid
state at construction time. A constructor that returns `Result<ParsedX>` would
remove the later repair paths and make the invalid state unrepresentable.
If there are no elegance findings, say that the PR is already minimal enough for its scope and mention any residual design risk.
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 · 37 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A c6c9870cbe26
code-review-elegance is a skill published in the GitHub repository eric-tramel/moraine (116 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 376 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.