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 fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_MallWrote 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/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/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/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fabioc-aloha/alex_skill_mall/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00019 | $0.02007 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01004 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00401 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00201 |
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 6d 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 — 196 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Skill
Good reviews catch bugs. Great reviews teach the author something.
Review Priority (What Matters Most)
- Correctness — Does it do what it's supposed to?
- Security — Can it be exploited?
- Maintainability — Will the next person understand this?
- Performance — Will it scale?
- Style — Is it consistent? (ideally enforced by linters, not humans)
3-Pass Review
| Pass | Focus | What You're Looking For | Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Orientation | Big picture | Does the approach make sense? Is the scope right? Over-engineered? | 2-3 min |
| 2. Logic | Deep read | Edge cases, null handling, error paths, concurrency, off-by-one | 10-15 min |
| 3. Polish | Surface | Naming, duplication, test coverage, docs | 3-5 min |
Pass 1 shortcut: Read the PR description and test names first. They reveal intent faster than code.
Comment Prefixes
| Prefix | Meaning | Author Response |
|---|---|---|
[blocking] |
Must fix before merge | Fix it |
[suggestion] |
Better approach exists | Consider it, explain if declining |
[question] |
I don't understand | Clarify (in code, not just in reply) |
[nit] |
Trivial style issue | Fix if easy, skip if not |
[praise] |
This is well done | Appreciate it |
Good vs Bad Comment Examples
| Bad | Why | Good |
|---|---|---|
| "This is confusing" | Vague, unhelpful | "[suggestion] This nested ternary is hard to follow. Consider extracting to a named function like isEligibleForDiscount()." |
| "Fix this" | No context | "[blocking] This accepts user input without sanitization. Use escapeHtml() before rendering." |
| "Why?" | Sounds hostile | "[question] What's the motivation for the custom sort here vs Array.sort()? Is there a performance concern?" |
| "LGTM" (on 500-line PR) | Rubber stamp | "Pass 1: Approach looks right. Pass 2 comments below. Pass 3: naming is clean." |
Review Checklist
Security
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 196 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 615ec9874c58
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository fabioc-aloha/Alex_Skill_Mall (4 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 2,007 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-pr
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
refactor
Analyze code for SOLID violations and suggest targeted improvements.
code-qualities-assessment
Assess code maintainability through 5 foundational qualities (cohesion, coupling, encapsulation, testability, non-redundancy) with quantifiable scoring rubrics. Works at method/class/module levels across multiple languages. Produces markdown reports with remediation guidance. Use when you ask to "assess…
github-operations
WORKFLOW SKILL — Full GitHub contribution lifecycle: branches, conventional commits, issues, PRs, Actions, releases. gh CLI-first with MCP fallback. WHEN: "commit", "push", "open PR", "create branch", "create issue", "cut release", "GitHub operation". DO NOT USE FOR: Azure infrastructure, Bicep/Terraform code…
pr-quality-qa
Judge a local diff on test coverage, error handling, and whether the tests would fail if the code regressed, and return a PASS/WARN/CRITICALFAIL verdict. Use when you say qa review my changes, run the qa gate, or are these tests good enough. Do NOT use to run all six axes (use pr-quality-all), and do NOT use to write…