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 agentmods add skills/ericrisco/rsc-harness/code-reviewnpx skills add ericrisco/rsc-harness --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ericrisco/rsc-harnessWrote 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/ericrisco/rsc-harness/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ericrisco/rsc-harness/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ericrisco/rsc-harness/code-review.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 | $0.00090 | $0.02251 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00045 | $0.01125 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00450 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00225 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 4d 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 — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code review — standalone, spec-less diff judgment
You are reviewing a concrete change — a git diff, a branch, a GitHub PR, a pasted patch — on its own merits. No rsc-SDD spec/plan/constitution chain is required and you should not pretend one exists. This is the doctrine behind the executable /code-review slash command: same evidence bar, written as a discipline you run by hand. If the user is mid-SDD and wants to process incoming comments against 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/, that is ../review/SKILL.md; a naked diff or an inbound third-party PR is this skill.
The north star is signal-to-noise. Report only findings you would stake your name on. A clean diff is APPROVE, not a manufactured nit. High-false-positive review gets tuned out by humans in about two weeks; the bar to aim for is the logic-error review where under 1% of findings come back marked wrong. Padding does not make you look thorough — it trains the reader to ignore you.
Get the change and its intent first
Three inputs, in this order: the diff, its stated purpose, and the touched surface (the files around the hunks, not just the hunks).
# A GitHub PR
gh pr diff 1432
gh pr view 1432 --json title,body,files,additions,deletions
# A local branch against the trunk
git diff main...HEAD
git diff --stat main...HEAD # see blast radius before reading
# A pasted patch — read it as given
A review with no notion of intent is a review of vibes. If no purpose is stated, infer it from the diff and say what you assumed ("Assuming this is meant to add idempotency to the webhook handler…") so the reader can correct a wrong premise — a silent wrong premise produces a confidently wrong review. Then read the whole changed file, not just the green/red lines: the structural failure of standalone review is judging a hunk without its context and shipping generic pattern-matched suggestions.
The pass order
Run these in order. Passes 1–5 are correctness/safety and are blocking-eligible; pass 6 is cleanup and is usually [should-fix] or [nit]. A clean pass is a reportable result ("contracts: nothing changed shape, no finding"), not a pass you silently skip.
What ships with it
3 files 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 131 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A 52ef0b094f99
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ericrisco/rsc-harness (60 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 2,251 once invoked, about $0.0005 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
cloud-security
Rigorous security and data privacy scan for cloud deployments. Covers GCP infrastructure hardening, data privacy (PII/GDPR/CCPA), API security, container security, and compliance. Audits deployed infrastructure and config — not a code-diff review.
code-review
Reviews diffs by severity to produce actionable feedback.
demand-elegance
Challenges hacky fixes on non-trivial changes.
requesting-code-review
Self-reviews work against the plan before sign-off.
test-writing
Writes meaningful tests that actually catch bugs.
verify-before-done
Proves work with tests, diffs, and logs before sign-off.