review

review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from ericrisco/rsc-harness. It costs 89 tokens per session (4,905 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A structured code-review skill for checking whether a completed change is correct, properly scoped, and faithful to its specification. It can also help verify review comments before accepting or rejecting them.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review a diff against project requirements, rank findings by impact, and assess incoming review feedback with evidence.
Why use it?
It adds an adversarial check after tests pass, catching defects that linting, type checks, and tests may miss.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one. Also seen: mentions CLAUDE.md; mentions subagents.

Good fit Use it to review a diff against project requirements, rank findings by impact, and assess incoming review feedback with evidence.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/ericrisco/rsc-harness/review
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add ericrisco/rsc-harness --skill review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ericrisco/rsc-harness

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ericrisco/rsc-harness/review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/ericrisco/rsc-harness/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ericrisco/rsc-harness/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ericrisco/rsc-harness/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 89 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 4,905 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector warn 7 Sept 2026
SkillSpector: 6 findings, up to medium

These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →

  • medium Excessive Agency · line 19
    Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.
    Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
  • medium MCP Rug Pull · line 119
    npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.
    Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
  • medium MCP Rug Pull · line 121
    npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.
    Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
  • medium MCP Rug Pull · line 122
    npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.
    Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
  • medium MCP Rug Pull · line 178
    npx commands without a version suffix (e.g. @1.0.0) create a rug-pull risk if the upstream server is compromised and publishes a malicious update.
    Fix: Pin the version: npx @scope/[email protected]
  • medium Excessive Agency · line 226
    Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.
    Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00089 $0.04905
Opus 5 $0.00044 $0.02452
Sonnet 5 $0.00018 $0.00981
Haiku 4.5 $0.00009 $0.00490

Measured 4d ago against content hash 692d45ac1eca, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-08, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

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.

skills/review/SKILL.md · 297 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 297 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Review — adversarial code review, both directions

Review is the penultimate gate of the rsc SDD chain: constitution → specify → clarify → plan → tasks → analyze → implement → verify → **review** → ship. By the time a diff reaches review, the verify phase has already proven that lint, types, tests and the stack verify.sh are green. Review answers a different question: is the green diff actually correct, well-scoped, and faithful to the spec — or did it pass for the wrong reasons?

This skill owns two roles that share one discipline:

  • Giving a review — read a diff adversarially, find the real defects, rank them by impact, ship the verdict as evidence not opinion.
  • Receiving a review — take incoming feedback (human or machine), verify each point against the code before acting, fix the real findings, and push back — with proof — on the wrong ones.

The discipline is the same in both directions: every finding and every rebuttal carries evidence — no agreement without verification, no objection without a defect. A reviewer who waves through a bug to be agreeable, and an author who edits working code because a comment sounded authoritative, are making the same mistake. Everything below is in service of that one rule.

Route out when the ask isn't this gate: a deep OWASP / threat-model pass belongs to ../secure-coding/SKILL.md (review folds its findings in, but the dedicated pass is owned there); a "is this idiomatic React/FastAPI/Go/SQL" question belongs to the stack skill (../nextjs/SKILL.md, ../fastapi/SKILL.md, ../go/SKILL.md, ../postgresdb/SKILL.md, ../flutter/SKILL.md) — pull the idiom there, then judge against it here.

Read these first

  1. 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/specs/<slug>.md and 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/plans/<slug>.md — what the diff was supposed to do. A review with no spec is a review of vibes.
  2. 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/constitution.md — the project's non-negotiables (stack canon, quality bars, conventions). Constitution violations are findings even when the code "works".
  3. 02-DOCS/wiki/harness/user-profile.md — the accompaniment dial (see "Narration dial" below).

Read the full file on GitHub · 297 lines

Files

What ships with it

2 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.

Changes

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.

  1. 4d ago First seen · 297 lines · 89 tokens per session scan A 692d45ac1eca

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ericrisco/rsc-harness (70 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 89 tokens to every session and 4,905 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.