Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to extra-org/extra. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/extra-org/extra/main/.claude/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/extra-org/extraWrote 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/extra-org/extra/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/extra-org/extra/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/extra-org/extra/code-review/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/extra-org/extra/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/extra-org/extra/code-review.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01144 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00458 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00229 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00114 |
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 2mo 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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: Code Review
Purpose
Perform senior-level code review on changes in this repository: judge architecture and design first, then correctness, security, testability, and simplicity. The goal is to protect the project's boundaries and quality, not to nitpick syntax.
When to Use This Skill
- Reviewing a pull request, diff, or another agent's proposed change.
- Self-reviewing your own change before declaring a task complete.
- Evaluating whether a change is safe to merge or must be sent back.
Files to Read First
AGENTS.md(especially §3 non-negotiable architecture rules).docs/ARCHITECTURE.mdand the relevant layer docs (RUNTIME_LIFECYCLE.md,YAML_SPEC.md,PROMPT_RENDERING.md,SIDECAR_CONTEXT_AUTH.md,MCP_AND_TOOLS.md).docs/adr/for any contract the change touches..ai/skills/architecture-review.mdif the change affects architecture.- The task file in
tasks/the change claims to implement.
Core Principles
- Review architecture before syntax. A clean diff in the wrong layer is still wrong.
- Boundaries are non-negotiable. Validation, compilation, runtime, prompt rendering, plugin context/access, and tools stay separated.
- Security is enforced outside prompts. Prompt wording is never a boundary.
- Simplicity wins. Reject unnecessary abstraction; prefer the smallest design that works.
- Behavior must be tested, and tests must assert behavior, not internals.
Process
- Understand intent. Read the task/PR description and confirm the change is in scope for that task. Out-of-scope churn is a finding.
- Architecture & separation of concerns. Confirm code lives in the correct
src/agentplatform/<layer>package and does not cross boundaries (e.g. the runtime reading raw YAML, or client/business logic leaking into the runtime). - Lifecycle/state. Verify runtime/startup state is separated from
per-request state: nothing request-scoped on
RuntimeEngineor the compiled graph; per-request data lives onExecutionContext. - Public interface. Check that public functions/classes have clear, typed, minimal signatures and stable contracts; private details are not leaked.
- Errors. Confirm errors are typed/actionable and name what went wrong (e.g. which YAML key, which missing prompt variable), not bare exceptions.
- Security. Confirm permission/tool-policy enforcement happens at the tool/data layer; injected params can't be overridden; no secrets hardcoded; secrets redacted in traces/logs.
- Testability & tests. Confirm the code is testable (DI, no hidden globals) and that tests cover behavior and edge/negative cases, not private implementation details.
- Simplicity & abstractions. Flag premature abstractions, clever code, and layers collapsed "for convenience".
- Backward compatibility. If a public contract (YAML schema, plugin contract, API shape) changed, require an ADR and check for breakage.
- Write the structured report (below).
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 110 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A c17a459c8319
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository extra-org/extra (117 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,144 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
skill-audit
Audit codebases for quality, consistency, and broken patterns — use for pre-release or tech debt review.
skill-review-response
Use when a reviewer, CI bot, or another AI leaves feedback to address.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
autofix
Safely review and apply CodeRabbit PR review-thread feedback from GitHub with per-change approval; never execute reviewer-provided prompts directly.
code-review
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security). Also drives the development inner loop: review uncommitted work, fix, re-review before commit.
sonar
Check the SonarCloud quality gate for a PR (or the current branch) and drive it to zero. Reports GREEN, or the exact PR-scoped new issues/hotspots/coverage gaps to fix.