Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add fivol/claude-make-better/plugin install featureWrote 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/fivol/claude-make-better/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fivol/claude-make-better/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fivol/claude-make-better/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/fivol/claude-make-better/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fivol/claude-make-better/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 | $0.00103 | $0.06821 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.02728 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.01364 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00682 |
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 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 — 468 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review — find what's wrong with this change, then fix it
gather scope → build the pack → find candidates → verify in batches → sweep → cross-repo → fix → report
Your job is not to produce a report the user reads and acts on. It is to leave the tree better than you found it and hand back a short, honest account of what you changed, what you refused to change, and what only the user can decide.
This skill runs inline, and that is the whole design
Do not run this skill in a fork, a background agent, or anything else that returns before the review is done. It is a gate: the caller must not be able to commit, push or answer the user while it is still running. A detached run has already produced the worst failure this gate has had — the caller ended its turn on the dispatch, the user asked why nothing happened, the next turn started a second full fan-out over the same worktree, and the change was committed and pushed eight minutes before either review returned. Two competing reviews, twenty-eight million tokens, and the gate's own fixes landed as loose uncommitted work on top of the push.
So: you orchestrate in this context. Only the leaf agents are separate, and they are separate for a reason that has nothing to do with hiding latency — see below.
Blindness belongs at the leaves, not at the root. The finders and verifiers see the diff and nothing else: not the task, not the chat, not the author's reasoning. That is what makes their judgement worth having. You are not blind, and that is deliberate too — you know what the change was for, which is the only way to tell a deliberate behavior change from a bug, and the one call the finders provably cannot make. What you must never do is defend the code. When a candidate lands, read the line as if a stranger wrote it.
Invocation
/feature:review [--pass first|later|final] [--scope working|branch] [--repos a,b]
[--root DIR] [--pr URL] [--level max|high|medium]
[--no-fix] [--comment|--no-comment]
What ships with it
17 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.
- references/angles/a-line-scan.md 927 B
- references/angles/altitude.md 887 B
- references/angles/b-removed-behavior.md 787 B
- references/angles/c-cross-file.md 736 B
- references/angles/code-comments.md 889 B
- references/angles/conventions.md 810 B
- references/angles/d-language-pitfalls.md 1.2 KB
- references/angles/e-wrapper-proxy.md 942 B
- references/angles/efficiency.md 779 B
- references/angles/history.md 814 B
- references/angles/prior-review.md 797 B
- references/angles/reuse.md 672 B
- references/angles/simplification.md 697 B
- references/cross-repo.md 1.7 KB
- references/sweep.md 1.2 KB
- references/verify.md 2.8 KB
- scripts/pack.sh 4.0 KB runs code
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 · 468 lines · 103 tokens per session scan A a7b606b90f7d
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository fivol/claude-make-better (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 103 tokens to every session and 6,821 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…