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 hardness1020/Leeway --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hardness1020/LeewayWrote 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/hardness1020/leeway/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hardness1020/leeway/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hardness1020/leeway/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/hardness1020/leeway/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hardness1020/leeway/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 | $0.00040 | $0.00269 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00108 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00054 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00027 |
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 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.
What it actually says
Code Review
Workflow
- Scan structure — use
globandgrepto understand the scope of changes - Read changed files — focus on logic, not formatting
- Check against patterns — see references/checklist.md for the full checklist
- Identify issues — categorize by severity (critical, major, minor, suggestion)
- Write report — structured as Summary, Issues, Suggestions
Rules
- Cite file:line for every issue — evidence before opinion
- Keep one issue per point — don't bundle unrelated problems
- Suggest fixes, not just problems — "consider X" is better than "this is wrong"
- Praise good patterns — reinforce what works
Output Format
## Summary
[1-2 sentence overall assessment]
## Issues
- **[severity]** file:line — description
## Suggestions
- file:line — recommendation
For the full quality checklist, read references/checklist.md.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 37 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 484e0739294b
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hardness1020/Leeway (116 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 269 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
beautify-with-pingfusi
Beautify or redesign an existing website through iterative pingfusi review rounds with a real human reviewer. Use when asked to "beautify this website," "make this page look professional," "polish this UI/design," "improve the visual design," or finish an AI-built page when there is no reference site to match. Do not…
review-video-with-pingfusi
Have any video reviewed by a real human, through iterative pingfusi review rounds. Use when asked to "review this video", "check the rendered video", "does this video match the prompt/brief", "what do people think of this ad/trailer/demo", or after rendering a Remotion composition or AI-generated clip that no test can…
fix-with-pingfusi
Fix or polish an existing website clone/draft using pingfusi review rounds. Use when the user says "fix it with pingfusi", "polish this clone", "make this match the original", or asks to finish/verify a draft built by any tool (ditto, lovable, v0, hand-written) until the review passes.
pixel-perfect-clone
Clone, copy, or replicate a website/page pixel-perfect using pingfusi. Use when the user asks to clone a site or page with pingfusi, copy a webpage's design, replicate a page, or make a pixel-perfect copy of a URL. Drives the full enforced pipeline - capture, numeric gates, behavior reproduction, and review rounds…
pingfusi-review
Use Pingfusi proactively whenever a coding agent reaches a question it cannot settle with code, automated tests, documentation or search, or a local browser and needs real human judgment or real-world verification. Trigger even when the user does not mention Pingfusi for subjective choices about copy, design, clarity…
aperture_lab_autoresearch
Run Aperture Lab F-Stop on imported public trajectories, prepare review artifacts, compare disagreements, and propose bounded semantic-layer improvements under strict replay gates.