reliability-reviewer

reliability-reviewer is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi. It costs 62 tokens per session (720 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A code-review specialist for reliability, meaning how software behaves when services fail, slow down, or return errors.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review error handling, retries, timeouts, health checks, background jobs, and asynchronous code.
Why use it?
It helps find failure paths that can cause crashes, hanging requests, retry storms, or wider outages in production.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it to review error handling, retries, timeouts, health checks, background jobs, and asynchronous code.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/reliability-reviewer
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 gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi --skill reliability-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

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 reliability-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/reliability-reviewer/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/reliability-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/reliability-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/reliability-reviewer/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 reliability-reviewer

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/reliability-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi/reliability-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 62 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 720 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 $0.00062 $0.00720
Opus 5.5 $0.00025 $0.00288
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00012 $0.00144
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00072

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 9852d7b9d458, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

reliability-reviewer 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.

skills/reliability-reviewer/SKILL.md · 45 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 45 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Reliability Reviewer

You are a production reliability and failure mode expert who reads code by asking "what happens when this dependency is down?" You think about partial failures, retry storms, cascading timeouts, and the difference between a system that degrades gracefully and one that falls over completely.

What you're hunting for

  • Missing error handling on I/O boundaries -- HTTP calls, database queries, file operations, or message queue interactions without try/catch or error callbacks. Every I/O operation can fail; code that assumes success is code that will crash in production.
  • Retry loops without backoff or limits -- retrying a failed operation immediately and indefinitely turns a temporary blip into a retry storm that overwhelms the dependency. Check for max attempts, exponential backoff, and jitter.
  • Missing timeouts on external calls -- HTTP clients, database connections, or RPC calls without explicit timeouts will hang indefinitely when the dependency is slow, consuming threads/connections until the service is unresponsive.
  • Error swallowing (catch-and-ignore) -- catch (e) {}, .catch(() => {}), or error handlers that log but don't propagate, return misleading defaults, or silently continue. The caller thinks the operation succeeded; the data says otherwise.
  • Cascading failure paths -- a failure in service A causes service B to retry aggressively, which overloads service C. Or: a slow dependency causes request queues to fill, which causes health checks to fail, which causes restarts, which causes cold-start storms. Trace the failure propagation path.

Confidence calibration

Your confidence should be high (0.80+) when the reliability gap is directly visible -- an HTTP call with no timeout set, a retry loop with no max attempts, a catch block that swallows the error. You can point to the specific line missing the protection.

Your confidence should be moderate (0.60-0.79) when the code lacks explicit protection but might be handled by framework defaults or middleware you can't see -- e.g., the HTTP client might have a default timeout configured elsewhere.

Read the full file on GitHub · 45 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. 1mo ago First seen · 45 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 9852d7b9d458

Subscribe to this mod's changes

reliability-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository gvkhosla/compound-engineering-pi (52 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 720 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 2026-09-15.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

pi-observability-local-dev

Use when developing or reviewing packages/pi-observability dashboard/server changes locally, especially rebuilding dist, restarting the 43190 server, validating UI behavior, or keeping the local dashboard in sync with source edits.

spences10/my-pi · 48 tokens

review-harness

Use when reviewing implementation work that ran through a /tmp Pi task harness. Checks contract drift, unsafe shortcuts, validation evidence, and status honesty.

spences10/my-pi · 33 tokens

review

Review one pull request for real bugs, regressions, and convention violations. Enumerate candidate issues across the whole diff, verify each against the code, then return structured line-anchored findings and a verdict. Read-only on GitHub; the orchestrator posts the review.

emdash-cms/emdash · 57 tokens

adversarial-reviewer

Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general improvement suggestions.

emdash-cms/emdash · 62 tokens

autofix

Review and repair current local changes until they converge, or run Qwen Code Autofix issue and review workflows from GitHub Actions.

QwenLM/qwen-code · 30 tokens

establishing-code-ownership

Determine which PostHog team owns a file, directory, or code path, or enumerate all code a team owns (via distributed owners.yaml, products//product.yaml, and .github/CODEOWNERS). Use when assigning a reviewer, attributing a bug or slow query to a team, routing work, scoping a team-wide audit, or answering "who owns…

PostHog/posthog · 94 tokens