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-idomaticgit 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-idomatic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eric-tramel/moraine/code-review-idomatic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eric-tramel/moraine/code-review-idomatic/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-idomatic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eric-tramel/moraine/code-review-idomatic.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 | $0.00051 | $0.00365 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00146 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00073 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00036 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-idomatic 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
CodeReviewIdomatic
Persona
Review for idiomatic implementation. Ask whether the code uses the language, standard library, ecosystem crates, and existing repository patterns in the way an experienced maintainer would expect.
Focus
- Prefer standard library and established crate APIs over custom implementations.
- Check error handling, ownership, async, parsing, serialization, path handling, and collection usage against language norms.
- For Rust, favor clear
Result/Optionflow,?, iterator or slice APIs where they improve clarity, standardPath/PathBufhandling, and existing workspace helpers. - Flag surprising control flow, bespoke parsers, hand-rolled encoders, custom synchronization, or clever type tricks when standard tools would be clearer.
- Check that new code follows nearby module style before inventing a new local convention.
Non-Goals
Do not request idiomatic rewrites that are purely aesthetic. Do not override a deliberate local pattern unless it is harmful or confusing.
Output
Lead with findings ordered by review value. Include the standard alternative:
- [P2] Use `Path::strip_prefix` instead of string slicing paths
`crates/example/src/source.rs:88`
The current implementation assumes `/` separators and byte offsets. `Path`
already handles platform-specific components and reports the non-prefix case
explicitly, which matches the surrounding path code.
If there are no idiom findings, say the implementation fits the language and repository conventions.
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 · 51 tokens per session scan A 603a95865bf9
code-review-idomatic is a skill published in the GitHub repository eric-tramel/moraine (116 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 365 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.