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 IdoCohen560/claude-unity-game-studio --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/IdoCohen560/claude-unity-game-studioWrote 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/idocohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/idocohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/idocohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/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/idocohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/idocohen560/claude-unity-game-studio/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 | $0.00041 | $0.01448 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00579 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00290 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00145 |
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 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to code-review — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 167 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase 1: Load Target Files
Read the target file(s) in full. Read CLAUDE.md for project coding standards.
Phase 2: Identify Engine Specialists
Read .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md, section ## Engine Specialists. Note:
- The Primary specialist (used for architecture and broad engine concerns)
- The Language/Code Specialist (used when reviewing the project's primary language files)
- The Shader Specialist (used when reviewing shader files)
- The UI Specialist (used when reviewing UI code)
If the section reads [TO BE CONFIGURED], no engine is pinned — skip engine specialist steps.
Phase 3: ADR Compliance Check
Search for ADR references in the story file, commit messages, and header comments. Look for patterns like ADR-NNN or docs/architecture/ADR-.
If no ADR references found, note: "No ADR references found — skipping ADR compliance check."
For each referenced ADR: read the file, extract the Decision and Consequences sections, then classify any deviation:
- ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATION (BLOCKING): Uses a pattern explicitly rejected in the ADR
- ADR DRIFT (WARNING): Meaningfully diverges from the chosen approach without using a forbidden pattern
- MINOR DEVIATION (INFO): Small difference from ADR guidance that doesn't affect overall architecture
Phase 4: Standards Compliance
Identify the system category (engine, gameplay, AI, networking, UI, tools) and evaluate:
- Public methods and classes have doc comments
- Cyclomatic complexity under 10 per method
- No method exceeds 40 lines (excluding data declarations)
- Dependencies are injected (no static singletons for game state)
- Configuration values loaded from data files
- Systems expose interfaces (not concrete class dependencies)
Phase 5: Architecture and SOLID
Architecture:
- Correct dependency direction (engine <- gameplay, not reverse)
- No circular dependencies between modules
- Proper layer separation (UI does not own game state)
- Events/signals used for cross-system communication
- Consistent with established patterns in the codebase
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 · 167 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A f82b5618093b
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository IdoCohen560/claude-unity-game-studio (22 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,448 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to code-review, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
log-correlation
Correlates and troubleshoots logs across OS (Linux/macOS), AWS (CloudWatch, CloudTrail, ALB, Lambda), application (JSON, logfmt), and web servers (Nginx, Apache).
architecture-review
Audits existing architecture for anti-patterns, scalability and reliability risks, and testability gaps. Graded findings with migration paths and a to-be diagram.
code-review
Structured engineering code review covering readability, complexity, test gaps, SOLID principles, and API consistency. Complements full-security-review with general code quality.
swarm
Run a multi-agent audit of a codebase by spawning specialized parallel subagents (security, performance, tests, architecture, dead-code), then synthesize their findings into a single prioritized action plan. Use this whenever the user runs /swarm, asks to "audit the repo," "review this codebase," "find issues across…
abd-review
ABD Tech Review agent: reviews code quality, architecture, naming, and error handling; writes severity-graded review artifacts.
review
Phase 5 of 5 — triage-first review orchestrator; dispatches up to 17 domain checks in parallel and compiles one report. Use only when the user asks to run Phase 5 or review a PR, branch, or set of changes — never trigger automatically after writing code.