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 5.5 | $0.00048 | $0.00556 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 2mo 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 (73 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 120 tokens to every session and 1,390 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
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…
issue-creation
Trigger: issue creation, bug reports, feature requests, or issue approval. Create and triage GitHub issues from repository evidence.
skill-creator
Trigger: new skills, agent instructions, documenting AI usage patterns. Create LLM-first skills with valid frontmatter.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.
cognitive-doc-design
Design docs that reduce cognitive load. Trigger: writing guides, READMEs, RFCs, onboarding, architecture, or review-facing docs.
comment-writer
Write warm, direct collaboration comments. Trigger: PR feedback, issue replies, reviews, Slack messages, or GitHub comments.