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 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/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/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hg-pyun/claude-code-marketplace/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 | $0.00104 | $0.02337 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.00935 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 2mo 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 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 104 tokens to every session and 2,337 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…
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"…
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…
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…