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 skills add getlytos/lytos-cli --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/getlytos/lytos-cliWrote 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/getlytos/lytos-cli/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/getlytos/lytos-cli/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/getlytos/lytos-cli/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/getlytos/lytos-cli/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/getlytos/lytos-cli/code-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 | $0.00048 | $0.01290 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00516 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00258 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00129 |
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 — 178 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill — Code Review
This skill defines how to perform a code review on a project using Lytos. An agent loaded with this skill knows exactly what to check, in what order, and how to formulate feedback.
When to invoke this skill
- After each PR before merge
- At the human's explicit request on a file or module
- At the end of a sprint, for a global quality audit
Procedure
0. Self-review (before requesting review)
Before requesting a review from others:
- Re-read your own diff as if you were the reviewer
- Check for forgotten debug code, TODOs, commented-out code
- Verify the PR description explains the "why"
- Confirm all tests pass locally
1. Gather context
Before starting the review:
- Read the project manifest — understand the fundamental constraints
- Read the memory — check for relevant architectural decisions
- Read the active rules — these are the quality criteria to apply
- Read the linked issue — understand the "why" behind the change
2. Review checklist
Apply each point of this checklist to the submitted code:
PR size
- The PR is under 400 lines of meaningful changes (excluding generated files, lock files)
- If larger, the PR is split into logical, reviewable chunks
- Each PR has a single focus — one feature, one fix, one refactoring
Readability
- The code reads top to bottom effortlessly
- Variable, function, and class names are explicit
- No obscure abbreviations (except established project conventions)
- Logical blocks are visually separated
Structure
- Each file is under 300 lines
- One function = one responsibility
- No excessive nesting (max 3 levels)
- Imports are organized and sorted
Naming
- Functions describe what they do (verb + noun)
- Variables describe what they contain
- Constants are in UPPER_SNAKE_CASE
- Naming is consistent with the rest of the project
Duplication
- No copy-paste — if a pattern repeats 3+ times, it must be factored out
- Existing utility functions are reused
- No reinventing what already exists in dependencies
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 First seen · 178 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 26aa70406189
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository getlytos/lytos-cli (2 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,290 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 2026-08-31.
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…