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 Heyvhuang/ship-faster --skill review-clean-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Heyvhuang/ship-fasterWrote 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/heyvhuang/ship-faster/review-clean-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/heyvhuang/ship-faster/review-clean-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/heyvhuang/ship-faster/review-clean-code/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/heyvhuang/ship-faster/review-clean-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/heyvhuang/ship-faster/review-clean-code.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00074 | $0.01242 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00497 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00248 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00124 |
Grade A, and why
review-clean-code 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 182 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Clean Code Review
Focused on 7 high-impact review dimensions based on "Clean Code" principles.
Review Workflow
Review Progress:
- [ ] 1. Scan codebase: identify files to review
- [ ] 2. Check each dimension (naming, functions, DRY, YAGNI, magic numbers, clarity, conventions)
- [ ] 3. Rate severity (High/Medium/Low) for each issue
- [ ] 4. Generate report sorted by severity
Core Principle: Preserve Functionality
All suggestions target implementation approach only—never suggest changing the code's functionality, output, or behavior.
Check Dimensions
1. Naming Issues (Meaningful Names)
Check for:
- Meaningless names like
data1,temp,result,info,obj - Inconsistent naming for same concepts (
get/fetch/retrievemixed)
// ❌
const d = new Date();
const data1 = fetchUser();
// ✅
const currentDate = new Date();
const userProfile = fetchUser();
2. Function Issues (Small Functions + SRP)
Check for:
- Functions exceeding 100 lines
- More than 3 parameters
- Functions doing multiple things
// ❌ 7 parameters
function processOrder(user, items, address, payment, discount, coupon, notes)
// ✅ Use parameter object
interface OrderParams { user: User; items: Item[]; shipping: Address; payment: Payment }
function processOrder(params: OrderParams)
3. Duplication Issues (DRY)
Check for:
- Similar if-else structures
- Similar data transformation/error handling logic
- Copy-paste traces
4. Over-Engineering (YAGNI)
Check for:
if (config.legacyMode)branches that are never true- Interfaces with only one implementation
- Useless try-catch or if-else
// ❌ YAGNI violation: unused compatibility code
if (config.legacyMode) {
// 100 lines of compatibility code
}
5. Magic Numbers (Avoid Hardcoding)
Check for:
- Bare numbers without explanation
- Hardcoded strings
// ❌
if (retryCount > 3) // What is 3?
setTimeout(fn, 86400000) // How long is this?
// ✅
const MAX_RETRY_COUNT = 3;
const ONE_DAY_MS = 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000;
What ships with it
2 files 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 · 182 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A e99f06dd51d1
review-clean-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository Heyvhuang/ship-faster (338 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 1,242 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
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…
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…
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…