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 common-code-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/common-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-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/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hoangnguyen0403/agent-skills-standard/common-code-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 | $0.00032 | $0.00741 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
common-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 20d 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Expert
Priority: P1 (HIGH)
Role: Principal Engineer / senior review. Focus: logic, security, architecture. constructive.
Review Principles
- Substance > Style: Ignore formatting. Find bugs, flaws, design errors.
- Questions > Commands: " this handle null?" instead of "Fix this."
- Clarity: Group by
[BLOCKER],[MAJOR],[NIT]. - Sync: Enforce active framework P0 rules.
- Evidence First: Findings need file, AC, test, or diff evidence.
- Findings First: Lead with risks, not summary.
- Review completeness: Include test coverage and edge-case coverage even when CI is green or the requester asks for a quick review.
- Test-Review Evidence Gate: Before flagging a
[MAJOR]missing-test finding, apply ../common-tdd/references/quality-contract.md: explicitly name (1) the changed business contract, (2) the concrete plausible fault escaping to consumers, and (3) proof that nearby or upstream suites do not already cover it. Verify one logical contract per test; multiple assertions are allowed for related aspects/side effects. Do NOT demand a test per public symbol, private method, or trivial getter/echo.
Review Checklist (Mandatory)
- Security: No injection, secrets, auth leaks.
- Efficiency: No N+1 queries, memory leaks, high Big O.
- Logic: Requirements met. Edge cases handled.
- Clean Code: DRY/SOLID. Intent-revealing names.
Output Format (Strict)
Every substantive finding must include the literal `Why:` field. If code or a diff is missing, state the evidence needed before offering a substantive finding.
[SEVERITY] [File] Issue Description
Why: Risk or impact description.
Fix: 1-2 line code or action.
Red Flags
- Stop if you are praising before reviewing: Start with findings.
- Stop if a claim lacks evidence: Mark it as assumption or inspect more.
- Stop if you are reviewing style only: Return to behavior, security, tests.
What ships with it
6 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.
- 20d ago Changed · +1 lines b2998bfc5b07
- 1mo ago First seen · 78 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 3bf1d28ca94d
common-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository HoangNguyen0403/agent-skills-standard (582 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 741 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
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.