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 agentmods add skills/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace/code-reviewnpx skills add hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplaceWrote 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/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00104 | $0.02337 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00052 | $0.01169 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00467 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00234 |
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 6d 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 — 111 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Use_When>
- User asks for code review of staged/unstaged changes
- User says "review my changes", "/code-review", "코드 리뷰 해줘", "이거 리뷰"
- User wants severity-rated feedback rather than free-form impression
- Before opening a PR, when the user wants a self-review pass </Use_When>
<Do_Not_Use_When>
- User asks a syntax question — answer directly
- User wants explanation of existing code, not review
- User wants to apply fixes, not surface findings — use direct edit </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Why_This_Exists>
Free-form "looks good" reviews consume time without informing decisions. Severity-rated reviews let the user triage: fix CRITICALs now, batch MAJORs, defer MINORs. This skill is the canonical entrypoint for that triage style in the dev-tools plugin. The reviewer advisor is always dispatched (review stays a separate pass); security-auditor and doc-writer join the panel only when the diff actually touches their surface, so small diffs are not taxed with irrelevant advisor passes.
</Why_This_Exists>
<Execution_Policy>
- Always identify the review surface first (diff scope, or named files).
- Always dispatch the
revieweragent — review is a separate pass; do NOT inline the review logic. - Route the other two advisors by what the diff actually touches, using the
git diff --statoutput from Step 1 as the gate:security-auditor: dispatch only when the diff touches a security surface (auth/crypto/session code, input handling, serialization, config or secret files) or the diff is large (>150 changed lines).doc-writer: dispatch only when the diff touches*.mdfiles or changes a public API signature, option, or config schema.- A config-schema change that is also security-sensitive (auth, secrets, permissions config) trips BOTH gates — dispatch
security-auditoranddoc-writertogether. - For every advisor not dispatched, note it in the output as one line:
<agent>: skipped (no <surface> in diff).
- Slug-context exception: when a slug context is active (hand-off persistence path), always dispatch the full three-advisor panel — no routing gate — so persisted artifacts keep consistent multi-domain coverage.
- When
security-auditoris on the panel, append to the reviewer's dispatch prompt: "security-auditor is on this panel — skip the Security checklist category and focus on logic/quality/spec-compliance". (reviewer.mditself is unchanged — a standalone reviewer invocation runs its full checklist.) - Output must use the severity bar consistently across invocations.
- Hand-off persistence (slug context only): when a slug context is active (e.g., autopilot invocation or
--slug=<slug>argument), each advisor's findings MUST also be persisted to.dt-handoff/<slug>/artifacts/ask/<agent>-<ISO8601>.mdwith the descriptor frontmatter (kind=advisor, retention=session, status=complete; schema:scripts/validate.sh). For free-standing user invocations without a slug, in-session text output is sufficient and no file is written. </Execution_Policy>
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 111 lines · 104 tokens per session scan A 5d23bbfd52a3
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 104 tokens to every session and 2,337 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 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
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.