code-review-and-quality

code-review-and-quality is a skill for Claude Code from GuillemRoca/agent-skills-android. It costs 42 tokens per session (1,539 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A review framework for Android code, including Kotlin and Jetpack Compose code. It checks correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance, with findings grouped by category and tied to actions.

In plain words
What is it for?
Reviewing pull requests, checking your own changes before opening a pull request, assessing a file or module, and performing a final quality check after a feature is built.
Why use it?
It gives code reviews a consistent checklist and helps catch behavior, testing, design, security, and speed problems before code is approved.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin.

Part of the agent-skills-android plugin — 29 skills, 7 commands, 3 agents, 1 hook shipped together

Good fit Reviewing pull requests, checking your own changes before opening a pull request, assessing a file or module, and performing a final quality check after a feature is built.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/code-review-and-quality
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add GuillemRoca/agent-skills-android --skill code-review-and-quality
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/GuillemRoca/agent-skills-android

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install agent-skills-android, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 29 skills, 7 commands, 3 agents, 1 hook.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for code-review-and-quality

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/code-review-and-quality/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/guillemroca/agent-skills-android/code-review-and-quality)
Your own site
<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.

agentmods 80×15 button for code-review-and-quality

Your own site · 80×15
<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>
Per session 42 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,539 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00042 $0.01539
Opus 5 $0.00021 $0.00770
Sonnet 5 $0.00008 $0.00308
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00154

Measured 9d ago against content hash 774f6c02fe36, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-09, from the pricing page.

Security

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 9d 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.

skills/code-review-and-quality/SKILL.md · 180 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 180 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

  1. Read the PR description — what problem does it solve?
  2. Read the spec or ticket — does the PR match the stated goal?
  3. Check the diff size — target ~100 lines, flag >1000 lines for splitting

Step 2: Review Tests First

  1. Start with test files — they reveal the intended behavior
  2. 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)?

Step 3: Five-Axis Review

Axis 1: Correctness
  1. 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?
Axis 2: Readability
  1. Kotlin-specific readability:
// GOOD: idiomatic Kotlin
val activeTask = tasks.firstOrNull { !it.completed }
    ?: return TaskListUiState.Empty

// BAD: Java-style
var activeTask: Task? = null
for (task in tasks) {
    if (!task.completed) {
        activeTask = task
        break
    }
}
if (activeTask == null) return TaskListUiState.Empty
  1. Check for:
    • Clear naming (functions describe actions, variables describe content)
    • Appropriate use of when expressions, let/also/apply, extension functions
    • Functions under ~40 lines
    • Sealed classes/interfaces for exhaustive state handling
    • No nested callbacks (use coroutines)

Read the full file on GitHub · 180 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 9d ago First seen · 180 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 774f6c02fe36

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review-and-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository GuillemRoca/agent-skills-android (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,539 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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.

Related

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"…

Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty · 120 tokens

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"…

Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty · 155 tokens

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…

Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty · 85 tokens

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…

Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty · 160 tokens

spk-doctrine-semantic-compression

Invoke Randy Reducer and semantic-compression doctrine for behavior-preserving code reduction.

Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty · 25 tokens

spk-run-review-wp

Review a Spec Kitty work package through the runtime review surface and approve or reject with structured feedback.

Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty · 26 tokens