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 GuillemRoca/agent-skills-android --skill code-review-and-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GuillemRoca/agent-skills-androidWrote 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/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/code-review-and-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/code-review-and-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/code-review-and-quality/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/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/code-review-and-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/code-review-and-quality.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 | $0.02053 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00821 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00411 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00205 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-and-quality 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 20d 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 — 198 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review and Quality
Overview
Review code across five axes: Correctness, Readability, Architecture, Security, and Performance. The approval standard: "Approve when it definitely improves overall code health of the system." Every finding is categorized and actionable.
When to Use
- Reviewing a pull request (own or teammate's)
- Self-review before creating a PR
- Requested code quality check on a specific file or module
- After completing a feature (final quality gate)
Skip when: Not reviewing code (this is a review skill, not a writing skill).
Core Process
Step 1: Understand Context
- Read the PR description — what problem does it solve?
- Read the spec or ticket — does the PR match the stated goal?
- Check the diff size — target ~100 lines, flag >1000 lines for splitting
Step 2: Review Tests First
-
Start with test files — they reveal the intended behavior
-
Check for:
- Are critical paths tested?
- Are edge cases covered (null, empty, error, boundary values)?
- Do test names describe behavior?
- Are tests independent (no shared mutable state)?
- Would a test fail if the new behavior regressed?
Answer the last question by experiment, not by reading: invert one condition the change adds (drop a
!, swap&&for||, flip a>=), run that module's tests (./gradlew :module:testDebugUnitTest), then restore the file. A mutation that stays green is a finding — name the missing test case. For a project-wide mutation score, seeconstraint-driven-development.
Step 3: Five-Axis Review
Axis 1: Correctness
- Verify behavior matches intent:
- Does the code handle all states? (loading, success, error, empty)
- Are nulls handled safely? (no
!!, proper?.chains) - Are coroutines structured correctly? (proper scope, cancellation)
- Are lifecycle-aware collections used? (
collectAsStateWithLifecycle) - Do Room queries match the schema?
- Are migrations correct and tested?
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.
- 20d ago Changed · +18 lines 47966da65b12
- 1mo ago First seen · 180 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 774f6c02fe36
code-review-and-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository GuillemRoca/agent-skills-android (4 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 2,053 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
spec-kitty-implement-review
Orchestrate the implement-review loop for Spec Kitty work packages using any configured agent. Covers agent dispatch, state transitions, rejection cycles, arbiter escalation, and dependency-aware sequencing across all 13 supported coding agents. Triggers: "implement and review WPs", "run the implement-review loop"…
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…
adversarial-squad
Deploy a bounded, profile-loaded adversarial review squad at an SDD point-cut (post-spec, post-plan, post-tasks, pre-merge, or an ad-hoc decision) so independent doctrine lenses converge on findings one reviewer would miss. Triggers: "deploy a squad", "adversarial squad", "post-tasks anti-laziness pass", "pre-spec…
spk-run-review-wp
Review a Spec Kitty work package through the runtime review surface and approve or reject with structured feedback.
spk-doctrine-bulk-edit
Recognize bulk-edit missions and apply occurrence classification guardrails before modifying many matching instances.