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 hidai25/eval-view --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hidai25/eval-viewWrote 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/hidai25/eval-view/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hidai25/eval-view/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hidai25/eval-view/code-reviewer/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/hidai25/eval-view/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hidai25/eval-view/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00018 | $0.01190 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00476 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00238 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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 — 208 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Skill
A comprehensive code review assistant that analyzes code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, and best practices.
When to Use
Activate this skill when the user asks you to:
- Review code changes
- Check code for issues
- Analyze code quality
- Find security vulnerabilities
- Suggest improvements
Review Process
1. Understand the Context
First, determine what code to review:
- If reviewing staged changes:
git diff --staged - If reviewing recent commits:
git diff HEAD~1 - If reviewing specific files: read the files mentioned
- If unclear, ask the user what they want reviewed
2. Perform Multi-Level Analysis
Analyze the code across these dimensions:
Security Issues
- SQL injection vulnerabilities
- XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) risks
- Hardcoded secrets or credentials
- Unsafe file operations
- Command injection vulnerabilities
- Insecure dependencies
- Authentication/authorization issues
Code Quality
- Code duplication
- Complex functions (too many branches)
- Poor variable/function naming
- Missing error handling
- Inconsistent formatting
- Magic numbers/strings
- Dead code
Best Practices
- Framework/language conventions
- Design patterns appropriate for use case
- SOLID principles violations
- Proper use of async/await
- Resource cleanup (file handles, connections)
- Type safety issues
Performance
- Inefficient algorithms (O(n²) when O(n) possible)
- Unnecessary database queries (N+1 problem)
- Memory leaks
- Blocking operations in async code
- Large file operations without streaming
Testing
- Missing test coverage for critical paths
- Edge cases not handled
- Test quality (brittle tests, unclear assertions)
3. Structure Your Review
Create a review document with this structure:
# Code Review Summary
## Overview
[Brief summary of what was changed and overall assessment]
## Critical Issues 🔴
[Issues that MUST be fixed before merging]
## Important Issues 🟡
[Issues that should be addressed soon]
## Suggestions 🔵
[Nice-to-have improvements]
## Security Analysis
[Security-specific findings]
## Positives ✅
[What was done well - be specific]
## Next Steps
[Concrete action items with priority]
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 · 208 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A a10bed0cd64c
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository hidai25/eval-view (140 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 1,190 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
tactical-ddd
Design, refactor, analyze, and review code by applying the principles and patterns of tactical domain-driven design. Triggers on: domain modeling, aggregate design, 'entity', 'value object', 'repository', 'bounded context', 'domain event', 'domain service', code touching domain/ directories, rich domain model…
nasde-benchmark-calibration
Calibrate assessment rubrics by reviewing agent work in GitHub/GitLab PRs and feeding human comments back into the rubric. Use this skill when the user wants to: Calibrate, tune, or sanity-check assessment criteria / dimensions of a benchmark Review trial diffs alongside the LLM-as-a-Judge scores in a PR/MR…
code-review
Use when reviewing AI-generated code for architectural quality, design patterns, and engineering practices.
refactor
Skill "refactor" from NoesisVision/nasde-toolkit, covering refactor, when to use, refactoring principles, the golden rules and when not to refactor.
remember
Review the current conversation and capture valuable knowledge — best practices, coding conventions, architecture decisions, workflows, and user feedback — into persistent memory (AGENTS.md) or reusable skills. Use when the user says: (1) remember this, (2) save what we learned, (3) update memory, (4) capture…
code-review
Perform a structured code review of changes, checking for correctness, style, tests, and potential issues.