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 fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/plugin install code-reviewWrote 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/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/watch)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/watch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/watch/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/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/watch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fprochazka/claude-code-plugins/watch.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 | $0.00034 | $0.09431 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.03772 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.01886 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00943 |
Grade C, and why
watch scanned grade C with 1 finding 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 15d 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.
Hidden instructionshighPrompt injection
Directives inside HTML comments, invisible characters or bidirectional overrides are read by the model and not by the person reviewing the file.
- Every body `post.md` writes ends with `<!-- code-review:post -->`. Replace that line, inline and summary alike, with your own signature, so later passes can recognize your own threads by an exact last-line match: How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 447 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Watch the MR Until the Review Is Settled
Run a full code review of the current branch's merge request, post it, hand the work back to the author, and then watch it through the watcher agent until every blocking finding and every suggestion has been addressed in code or refuted with a reply.
The handshake invariant. The ticket carries the ball, as teamwork:review-handshake defines it; Phase 0.4 loads that skill.
That is what paces this command. After posting a round of findings, hand the work back per teamwork:review-handshake; the next round runs only when the handshake reads ready-for-review again. This keeps the review out of work-in-progress instead of commenting on every half-finished push.
review → post → hand back (teamwork:review-handshake) → [wait]
→ the author hands over again
→ sync the local branch onto the author's new head
→ revisit every open thread, reply, resolve what is settled
→ review the delta, post new findings
→ anything still open? hand back, wait again
→ nothing open? leave it handed over and stop
This command is the reviewer side of an MR. It is the mirror image of /sdlc:mr-babysit, which is the author side. The distinction matters and is enforced below: this command never edits, commits, pushes, or rebases locally.
$ARGUMENTS
Stance — you are the reviewer, not the author
For the whole lifetime of this command, including every follow-up round:
- Never change the code. No
Edit, noWriteinto the repo, nogit commit, nogit push, no localgit rebase, nogit checkoutof a different branch, no stash. If a finding has an obvious fix, describe it in the comment. Do not apply it. - Never resolve a thread the author opened, and never promise anything on the MR —
teamwork:review-handshake.
Exactly two kinds of write to git are authorized (the MR draft flag and the ticket status are metadata, not code — see the autonomy grant below):
- The server-side rebase via
glab mr rebase— Phase 1, once, never repeated. - The guarded
git reset --hardof the local sync procedure — after that rebase, and again at the start of every follow-up round. It fast-forwards the checkout onto the author's current head so re-reviews read fresh code. It never runs over a dirty tree or over local-only commits.
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.
- 15d ago Changed · +16 lines 69b41e39546a
- 25d ago Changed · -2 lines · +6 tokens per session dcab51c8f15b
- 1mo ago First seen · 433 lines · 28 tokens per session scan C f9b961d564dc
watch is a skill published in the GitHub repository fprochazka/claude-code-plugins (15 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 9,431 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (hidden instructions). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-12.
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"…
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…
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…