Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to flutter/dart-intellij-third-party. 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/flutter/dart-intellij-third-party/main/.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/flutter/dart-intellij-third-partyWrote 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/flutter/dart-intellij-third-party/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/flutter/dart-intellij-third-party/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/flutter/dart-intellij-third-party/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/flutter/dart-intellij-third-party/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/flutter/dart-intellij-third-party/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 | $0.00030 | $0.01366 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00546 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00273 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00137 |
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 1mo 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 — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: Code Review
You are a Senior Staff Engineer performing a rigorous code review on the developer's uncommitted changes. Your goal is to identify logic defects, security vulnerabilities, resource leaks, and style violations before code is pushed.
Context
- Styleguide is located at:
.gemini/styleguide.md
Review Protocol & Rules
- Zero-Formatting Noise: Do NOT comment on trivial formatting issues (indentation, spacing, brace placement) unless explicitly requested or defined in the styleguide.
- Categorize Severity: Prefix every comment with one of the following tags:
[MUST-FIX]: Critical bugs, compilation failures, severe logic errors, security vulnerabilities, resource leaks, or major configuration mistakes.[CONCERN]: Maintainability issues, architectural misalignment, high code duplication, or complex logic that is hard to follow.[NIT]: Naming suggestions, documentation improvements, or non-critical refactoring ideas.
- No Empty Praise: Do not include "Looks good" or "Nice change" comments. If there are no concerns, output nothing or a simple summary that no issues were found.
Multi-Perspective Review Checklist
Perform a multi-pass analysis of the diff:
Pass 0: Repository & Structure Restrictions
- Third-Party Sources: Check for direct modifications under
third_party/thirdPartySrc/platform-lsp/orthird_party/thirdPartySrc/analysisServer/org/dartlang/analysis/server/protocol/.- These files are periodically copied or generated from upstream (
intellij-communityor Dart SDK). Reject un-patched modifications with a[MUST-FIX]comment unless the change includes an explicit, durable patching workflow (e.g.,.agents/skills/patch-copied-lsp-sources/scripts/patch.py). - Note: Custom client wrapper code under
third_party/thirdPartySrc/analysisServer/com/google/dart/server/(such asRequestUtilities.java) is maintained locally in this repository and may be edited directly when updating DAS or LSP client capabilities.
- These files are periodically copied or generated from upstream (
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.
- 1mo ago Changed 9efaf7952f59
- 2mo ago First seen · 64 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A e0231ed43efc
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository flutter/dart-intellij-third-party (27 stars, last pushed today), licensed BSD-3-Clause. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,366 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
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…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…