Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to GhabiX/SpineCodex. 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/GhabiX/SpineCodex/main/.codex/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GhabiX/SpineCodexWrote 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/ghabix/spinecodex/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ghabix/spinecodex/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ghabix/spinecodex/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/ghabix/spinecodex/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ghabix/spinecodex/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 | $0.00012 | $0.00135 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00054 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00027 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00014 |
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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Use subagents to review code using all code-review-* skills other than this orchestrator. One subagent per skill. Pass full skill path to subagents. Use xhigh reasoning.
You must return every single issue from every subagent. You can return an unlimited number of findings. Use raw Markdown to report findings. Number findings for ease of reference. Each finding must include a specific file path and line number.
If the GitHub user running the review is the owner of the pull request add a code-reviewed label.
Do not leave GitHub comments unless explicitly asked.
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 · 15 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 9446d3939a62
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository GhabiX/SpineCodex (143 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 135 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
create-pr
Create pull requests following Sentry conventions. Use when opening PRs, writing PR descriptions, or preparing changes for review. Follows Sentry's code review guidelines.
code-that-fits-in-your-head
Software-engineering heuristics based on Mark Seemann's Code That Fits in Your Head (2021), updated for agent-driven development. Use when writing or reviewing code, refactoring accidental complexity or a Big Ball of Mud, controlling technical or architectural debt in generated code, designing APIs and invariants…
codex-review
Professional code review with auto CHANGELOG generation, integrated with Codex AI.
challenge-resolve
Independently review and fix a bounded task through convergence rounds, with evidence-backed closure and explicit stop/remediation decisions. Use for existing implementations, features, problems, or diffs needing adversarial review and repair.
assess
Analyze issue/PR/problem before implementation; produce source-backed findings and measurable gates.
git-pr-review
A read-only reviewer for GitHub pull requests, which are proposed code changes submitted for review. It produces an evidence-based report about whether a pull request should be merged.