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 agentmods add skills/furkangonel/cowrangler/code-reviewnpx skills add furkangonel/cowrangler --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/furkangonel/cowranglerWrote 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/furkangonel/cowrangler/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/furkangonel/cowrangler/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/furkangonel/cowrangler/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00037 | $0.01330 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00665 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00266 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00133 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A 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 4d 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
curl fallback (no gh): How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 163 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review SOP
Purpose
Perform a structured, thorough code review that catches bugs, security issues, and maintainability problems before they reach production.
Review Checklist
1. Correctness
- Logic errors and off-by-one mistakes
- Null/undefined/empty handling at boundaries
- Correct error propagation (errors not silently swallowed)
- Race conditions and async/await correctness
- Edge cases: empty arrays, zero values, maximum values
2. Security
- User input validated and sanitized before use
- No hardcoded secrets, tokens, or passwords
- No path traversal vulnerabilities (
../in file paths) - SQL/command injection not possible
- Authentication/authorization checks in place
- Sensitive data not logged
3. Performance
- No N+1 query patterns
- No blocking synchronous I/O in hot paths
- Large data not loaded into memory unnecessarily
- Proper use of indexes if database queries involved
- No unnecessary re-computation in loops
4. Maintainability
- Functions are short and do one thing (SRP)
- Variable/function names are self-documenting
- No duplicated logic (DRY principle)
- Complex logic has explanatory comments
- Dead code removed
- Magic numbers replaced with named constants
5. Type Safety (TypeScript/typed languages)
- No
anytypes without justification - Return types explicitly declared for public functions
- Nullable types handled correctly
- No unsafe type casts
6. Testing
- New logic has corresponding tests
- Edge cases covered in tests
- Tests are isolated and don't depend on order
- Mocks are used appropriately
Output Format
Structure your review as:
## Code Review Summary
**Overall Score**: X/10
**Risk Level**: Low / Medium / High / Critical
### Issues Found
#### CRITICAL
- [file:line] Description — Fix: ...
#### MAJOR
- [file:line] Description — Fix: ...
#### MINOR
- [file:line] Description — Fix: ...
### Positive Observations
- What is done well...
### Recommendation
APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / BLOCK
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 163 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 48422e448cdf
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository furkangonel/cowrangler (2 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,330 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.
requesting-code-review
Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.
dokploy-deploy
This skill should be used when user asks to "deploy with Dokploy", "use Dokploy Cloud", "manage self-hosted Dokploy", "deploy Docker Compose on Dokploy", "manage Dokploy databases", "configure Dokploy domains", or "look up Dokploy CLI commands".
codex-advisor
This skill should be used when the user asks for a "GPT second opinion", wants a "cross-model review", needs to "check a plan before committing", wants another view after repeated failures, or explicitly invokes "codex-advisor".
openai-frontend-design
Use for new frontend applications, dashboards, games, creative websites, hero sections, and visually driven UI from scratch, or when the user explicitly asks for a redesign/restyle/modernization. Builds from clean, airy, high-taste, readable image-generated concept design with section-specific references, faithful…
resolve-pr-comments
This skill should be used when user asks to "address PR comments", "resolve PR feedback", "handle review comments", "fix PR issues", "respond to PR review", or explicitly invokes "resolve-pr-comments".