Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to hamzaali81/nestjs-agent-workflow-kit. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hamzaali81/nestjs-agent-workflow-kit/main/.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hamzaali81/nestjs-agent-workflow-kitWrote 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/hamzaali81/nestjs-agent-workflow-kit/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hamzaali81/nestjs-agent-workflow-kit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hamzaali81/nestjs-agent-workflow-kit/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/hamzaali81/nestjs-agent-workflow-kit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hamzaali81/nestjs-agent-workflow-kit/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 | $0.00054 | $0.01561 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00624 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00312 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00156 |
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 2mo 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Review changed files against docs/standards and relevant .agents/skills references. Do not duplicate full convention text in the report; cite the relevant standard or skill section instead.
Review Steps
- Scope: Identify changed files with the relevant diff scope (
git diff --name-only,--cached, orHEAD~N). - Classify: Group changed files by type: controller (
*.controller.ts), service (*.service.ts), module (*.module.ts), DTO (dto/*.ts), repository (*.repository.ts), Prisma schema/migration, cross-cutting (common/**filters/guards/interceptors/pipes), config (config/**), and test (*.spec.ts,*.e2e-spec.ts). - Read the real code: For each changed controller, read the full handler bodies (not just the diff) to judge whether logic/data access leaked in. For services, read the methods touched. Do not rely only on
git diff --stat. - Conventions: Apply every applicable standard in the checklist below, including each standard's audit/check guidance.
- Report: List deviations in one flat list. If there are no deviations, say so explicitly.
Routing Hints
Use this table to know where to look first. It does not replace the mandatory coverage checklist.
| Changed files | Read |
|---|---|
| Cross-cutting / unfamiliar area | architecture.md first, then topic files below |
| Any TS | core-engineering.md |
*.controller.ts |
controllers.md, dtos-and-validation.md, error-handling.md |
dto/*.ts |
dtos-and-validation.md, openapi-swagger skill |
*.service.ts |
providers-and-services.md |
*.module.ts |
modules.md |
*.repository.ts, schema.prisma |
database.md, prisma-data-layer skill |
common/** (filter/guard/etc.) |
error-handling.md |
config/** |
configuration.md |
*.spec.ts, *.e2e-spec.ts |
testing.md |
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 101 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A b0a3b88baa90
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hamzaali81/nestjs-agent-workflow-kit (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 1,561 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
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"…
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…
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…
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…