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 HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard --skill codebase-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standardWrote 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/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/codebase-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/codebase-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/codebase-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/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/codebase-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/codebase-review.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 | $0.00038 | $0.01260 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00630 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00252 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
codebase-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 9d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codebase Review Skill
[!IMPORTANT] Review an entire codebase for architecture, engineering health, and exploitable risk; generate a prioritized remediation plan, an evidence-anchored system knowledge document, or both.
Optional args: slug=, ticket=<id/url>, mode=interactive|autonomous|channel, channel=, auto_continue=true|false, profile=business|hybrid|technical.
Instructions
When the user asks to perform this workflow, execute the following steps:
🛸 Codebase Review Orchestrator
Goal: Map a codebase from evidence, expose systemic risk, and produce the review and/or knowledge artifact requested.
Steps
-
Set the review contract:
- Select
analysis=fast|deepanddeliverable=review|knowledge|both; default tofast+reviewto preserve the existing audit behavior. Usedeepforknowledgeorbothunless the user explicitly requests otherwise. - Read stack markers (
package.json,go.mod,pubspec.yaml,pom.xml) and locate source, tests, docs, IaC, runtime config, entry points, data stores, and generated paths. - Load
common-architecture-audit,common-security-audit,common-owasp, andcommon-llm-security. - Build a source bundle from code, docs, tickets, diagrams, runbooks, and runtime evidence. Classify each as
trusted,semi-trusted, oruntrusted; record missing or inaccessible evidence.
- Select
-
Map the system before judging it:
- Inventory components, ownership boundaries, entry points, shared state, data stores, background jobs, external dependencies, configuration owners, and tests. Prioritize by runtime criticality plus import/call fan-in and fan-out; exclude generated/vendor files unless they define a public boundary.
- Trace each critical flow as
trigger -> validation/auth -> state mutation -> side effect -> consumer. Map cross-cutting logging, caching, error handling, authentication, and authorization. - Build an interaction and blast-radius matrix for shared schemas, libraries, configuration, state stores, events, and external contracts. Label every relationship as fact, inference, or unknown and cite its file/function/config evidence.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 65 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 1b4a3c1a5b1c
codebase-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard (565 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,260 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-quality
Comprehensive frontend code review for TypeScript 6 and React 19.2 — clean code principles, component patterns, type safety, accessibility, and performance. Use when user says "review code", "refactor", "check this PR", or before merging changes.
spotpatch
A development workflow for React that connects a selected page element to its JSX or TSX source code and gathers context for review.
ralph
Ralph - persistent self-referential execution loop wrapping ultrawork with independent verifier verification.
review
Full QA review pipeline covering security audit (OWASP Top 10), performance analysis, accessibility check (WCAG 2.1 AA), and code quality review.
design-lenses
Critique a game's design through Schell's lenses, MDA and systems thinking, ranking findings by severity with fixes. Design-level review, not bugs or feel tuning.
Component Test Scaffold (Next.js)
Generate React/Next.js component test skeletons (RTL) from specifications.