Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to gemini-cli-extensions/workspace. 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/gemini-cli-extensions/workspace/main/.gemini/skills/code-reviewer/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gemini-cli-extensions/workspaceWrote 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/gemini-cli-extensions/workspace/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gemini-cli-extensions/workspace/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gemini-cli-extensions/workspace/code-reviewer/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/gemini-cli-extensions/workspace/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gemini-cli-extensions/workspace/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00047 | $0.00974 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00390 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests.
Workflow
1. Determine Review Target
- Remote PR: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR.
- Local Changes: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes).
2. Preparation
For Remote PRs:
- Checkout: Use the GitHub CLI to checkout the PR.
gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER> - Verification: Execute the workspace's verification suite to catch issues
early. Capture the output of these commands to inform your review (e.g.,
note any failed tests or linting errors).
npm install npm run build npm run test npm run lint npm run format:check - Context: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history.
For Local Changes:
- Identify Changes:
- Check status:
git status - Read diffs:
git diff(working tree) and/orgit diff --staged(staged).
- Check status:
- Verification: Ask the user if they want to run the verification suite before reviewing. If yes, run the same commands as for remote PRs.
3. In-Depth Analysis
Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars:
- Correctness: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors?
- Maintainability: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to understand and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns.
- Readability: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines?
- Efficiency: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes?
- Security: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices?
- Edge Cases and Error Handling: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors?
- Testability: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (even if preflight checks pass)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness.
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 · 113 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 3d36852f50c5
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository gemini-cli-extensions/workspace (648 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 974 once invoked, about $0.0002 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…