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 groupzer0/vs-code-agents --skill code-review-checklistgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/groupzer0/vs-code-agentsWrote 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/groupzer0/vs-code-agents/code-review-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/groupzer0/vs-code-agents/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/groupzer0/vs-code-agents/code-review-checklist/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/groupzer0/vs-code-agents/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/groupzer0/vs-code-agents/code-review-checklist.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 | $0.00042 | $0.01229 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00492 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00246 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00123 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-checklist 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 — 154 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Checklist
Systematic review criteria for evaluating code and plans. Use this skill when:
- Critic reviews plans before implementation
- Security agent conducts code audits
- Architect reviews architectural compliance
- UAT validates implementation quality
Review Context
This skill supports two review phases:
| Phase | Agent | Focus | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Implementation | Critic | Plan quality, clarity, completeness | planning/*.md |
| Post-Implementation | Security, Architect | Code quality, security, architecture | Source code |
Pre-Implementation Review (Critic)
Value Statement Assessment (MUST START HERE)
| Check | Question | Finding Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Presence | Does plan have clear value statement in user story format? | CRITICAL if missing |
| Clarity | Is "So that" outcome measurable or verifiable? | HIGH if vague |
| Alignment | Does value support Master Product Objective? | CRITICAL if drift |
| Directness | Is value delivered directly, not deferred? | HIGH if deferred |
Plan Completeness
| Check | Question | Finding Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Are boundaries clearly defined? | MEDIUM |
| Deliverables | Are all deliverables listed with acceptance criteria? | HIGH |
| Dependencies | Are dependencies identified and sequenced? | MEDIUM |
| Risks | Are risks documented with mitigations? | LOW |
| Version | Is semver bump specified with rationale? | MEDIUM |
Constraint Compliance
| Check | Question | Finding Severity |
|---|---|---|
| No Code | Does plan avoid prescriptive code? | LOW |
| No How | Does plan focus on WHAT/WHY, not HOW? | LOW |
| Architecture | Does plan respect architectural constraints? | HIGH |
Post-Implementation Review (Security/Architect)
Security Checklist
| Category | Check | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Input Validation | All user input validated server-side? | CRITICAL |
| Authentication | Auth checks on all protected routes? | CRITICAL |
| Authorization | RBAC/ownership verified before access? | CRITICAL |
| Secrets | No hardcoded credentials or keys? | CRITICAL |
| SQL/Injection | Parameterized queries used? | CRITICAL |
| XSS | Output encoding applied? | HIGH |
| CSRF | Tokens on state-changing requests? | HIGH |
| Logging | Security events logged without sensitive data? | MEDIUM |
| Dependencies | No known CVEs in dependencies? | Varies |
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 154 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 16c8a5e929d1
code-review-checklist is a skill published in the GitHub repository groupzer0/vs-code-agents (292 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,229 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"…
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…
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…
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…