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 faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint --skill review-fullgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprintWrote 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/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/review-full)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/review-full"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/review-full/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/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/review-full"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/review-full.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 | $0.00120 | $0.01390 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00060 | $0.00695 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00278 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00139 |
Grade A, and why
review-full 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 10d 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 — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
This is a COMPREHENSIVE multi-agent code review. For quick anti-pattern scanning (seconds, not minutes), use review-diff instead.
Step 0: Detect scope and project
- If
$ARGUMENTSis empty: review uncommitted changes (staged + unstaged viagit diff+git diff --cached) - If
$ARGUMENTSis a file path: review that file only - If
$ARGUMENTSis a branch or range: review diff against that ref - If
$ARGUMENTSis "security": run security-only review (skip to step 3) - Detect project type from cwd/CLAUDE.md and the project manifest (any language/framework), or fall back to inspecting the file structure
Step 1: Spawn review agents in parallel
Launch up to 4 agents based on what the changes touch:
| Changes Touch | Agent to Spawn | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Any code | code-reviewer |
Quality, patterns, naming, DRY, error handling, consistency |
| API endpoints, auth, user input | security-reviewer |
OWASP Top 10, injection, auth gaps, secrets, CORS |
| Database queries, ORM models, migrations | db-analyst |
N+1, undefined vs null, missing models, query performance |
| New modules, moved files, cross-layer imports, large refactors | architecture-reviewer |
Dependency direction, circular deps, god files, dead code, modularity |
If changes are small (<50 lines), run code-reviewer only. If security argument, run security-reviewer only. Add architecture-reviewer when the change reshapes structure (new module boundaries, files moved across layers, a refactor spanning several directories) rather than editing within existing files.
Step 2: Code quality review (via code-reviewer agent)
The agent checks:
- Readability and naming conventions (matches project patterns?)
- DRY: duplicated logic that should be extracted
- Error handling: all async paths covered? Consistent error shapes?
- Component/function size: single responsibility?
- Static-typing discipline where the language has it: no unchecked escapes (TypeScript
any, Java rawObject, Gointerface{}, etc.)
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 92 lines · 120 tokens per session scan A d68e9242750f
review-full is a skill published in the GitHub repository faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint (70 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 120 tokens to every session and 1,390 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
code-review-excellence
Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.
multi-reviewer-patterns
Coordinate parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions with finding deduplication, severity calibration, and consolidated reporting. Use this skill when organizing multi-reviewer code reviews, calibrating finding severity, or consolidating review results.
chinese-code-review
A Chinese-language code-review communication guide with templates and severity levels for review comments.
receiving-code-review
A guide for handling code-review feedback carefully. Code review is the process of checking proposed changes before they are accepted into a project.
sdd-apply
Skill "sdd-apply" from Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai, covering execution role, language domain contract, purpose, what you receive and execution and persistence contract.
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…