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 h4vzz/awesome-ai-agent-skills --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/h4vzz/awesome-ai-agent-skillsWrote 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/h4vzz/awesome-ai-agent-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/h4vzz/awesome-ai-agent-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/h4vzz/awesome-ai-agent-skills/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/h4vzz/awesome-ai-agent-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/h4vzz/awesome-ai-agent-skills/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 | $0.00027 | $0.02125 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.01063 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00425 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00213 |
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 12d 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 — 4 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 184 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
This skill enables an AI agent to conduct a structured, comprehensive code review on a source file, a set of changes, or a pull request. The agent examines the code across multiple quality dimensions — correctness, security, performance, readability, and maintainability — and produces a detailed review report with actionable feedback tied to specific lines of code.
Workflow
-
Parse the input and establish context. Determine whether the input is a single file, a directory, or a pull request diff. If it is a pull request, fetch the diff and identify the base branch so that only the changed lines are reviewed. Read any related configuration files (linter configs, style guides, type definitions) to calibrate the review against the project's standards.
-
Understand the intent of the change. Read commit messages, PR descriptions, and surrounding code to understand what the author intended. This prevents false positives — a reviewer must know the goal before judging whether the code achieves it. Summarize the change in one sentence before proceeding.
-
Check for correctness and bugs. Walk through every changed function and trace the data flow. Look for null or undefined dereferences, off-by-one errors, incorrect boolean logic, unhandled error paths, race conditions in concurrent code, and resource leaks (open files, database connections, unreleased locks). Verify that edge cases — empty inputs, maximum values, unexpected types — are handled.
-
Evaluate security. Scan for common vulnerability patterns: unsanitized user input (SQL injection, XSS), hardcoded secrets or credentials, insecure cryptographic usage, overly permissive file or network access, and missing authentication or authorization checks. Flag any dependency additions and check for known CVEs.
-
Assess performance and scalability. Identify algorithmic complexity issues (nested loops over large collections, repeated database queries inside loops, unbounded memory growth). Check for unnecessary allocations, missing caching opportunities, and blocking calls in async contexts. Consider the expected data volume and whether the code will scale.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 184 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 26f39d1098b6
Code Review is a skill published in the GitHub repository h4vzz/awesome-ai-agent-skills (34 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 2,125 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-review, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
review
Use when the user wants code assessed rather than changed — "review PR 88", "is this branch ready to merge?", "look over my changes", "any problems with this diff?", "give me a code review", "what do you think of this PR?", "sanity-check this branch", "ship it?". Applies to a pull request or the current branch when…
techdebt
Analyze Elixir/Phoenix technical debt — duplicates, refactoring opportunities, credo issues. Use when asked about code quality, cleanup, or what to improve.
tech-debt-ci-review
Codex adapter for deep technical-debt and CI-stability audits. Use when asked to find test theater, flaky tests, missing or mis-scoped tests, brittle CI/toolchain behavior, structural debt blocking green PRs, or a remediation order for opencode-swarm.
docs
Use when documentation generally needs to catch up with a branch before pushing or merging, covering internal developer docs, external customer-facing docs, and release notes together — "update the docs", "do a docs pass before I merge", "make sure everything's documented". Prefer this when no single documentation…
requesting-code-review
PRFlow's final-pass review requester, dispatched by the review engine and available directly. Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.