Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/imisic/claude-marketplacenpx agentmods add skills/imisic/claude-marketplace/a-review-coreWrote 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/imisic/claude-marketplace/a-review-core)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/imisic/claude-marketplace/a-review-core"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/imisic/claude-marketplace/a-review-core/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/imisic/claude-marketplace/a-review-core"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/imisic/claude-marketplace/a-review-core.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 | $0.00021 | $0.05401 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.02701 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.01080 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00540 |
Grade A, and why
a-review-core 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 8d 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 — 347 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review core
The mechanics of a multi-agent code review, with nothing project-specific in them. A project's review skill is an overlay on this file: it supplies the dimensions, the whitelist, the preflight script, the stack references and the thresholds, and it does not restate what is here.
Read this in full before doing anything else. The project skill that sent you here assumes it.
Two rules govern the split, and they are what keeps this file useful:
- If it is true for every codebase, it belongs here. A fix landed here reaches every project at once. That is the entire point: before this file existed, the same eight skills each carried their own copy of the engine, and an improvement to one of them reached the others only when somebody remembered to re-run the generator. Measured 2026-08-29: hostile-content preflight checks were missing from three of eight skills, scope tables from three, rule-candidate surfacing from three, and whitelist growth markers from four, none of it deliberate.
- If it names a file, a framework, a check ID or a threshold, it belongs in the project skill. A stack-neutral engine that starts naming
app/src/has stopped being an engine.
1. Scope
Default is the working tree as it stands, which is the state the user is actually in when they ask.
git diff --name-only HEAD # uncommitted, the default scope
git diff --name-only <base>...HEAD # a branch under review
If the range diff is empty, fall back to the working tree, and vice versa. A review that reports "no changes" while the user is staring at edits has misread the scope, not found a clean tree. The project skill names the flags that widen this (--full and friends).
Flags scope the agents, not the preflight scan. See §2.
2. Preflight
Run the project's deterministic checks first and hand each agent only its slice. The script is the project's; the protocol is not.
A check with status error is a broken check, not a clean one. Treat error as unknown and say so in the report. Silence from a check that crashed reads identically to silence from a check that found nothing, and that ambiguity is how a dead check survives for months.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 347 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 1be729613726
a-review-core is a skill published in the GitHub repository imisic/claude-marketplace (2 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 5,401 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
agentic-review
Deep multi-agent code review for local changes. Inspired by AmpCode's agentic review. Use when you want comprehensive analysis of staged changes, unstaged changes, specific commits, or branch differences. Spawns parallel specialized agents (security, performance, patterns, architecture) and synthesizes actionable…
qa
Full QA on all session changes using Codex as a second pair of eyes. Use when user says "QA", "full QA", "QA my changes", "QA all your changes", or "use codex to review". Runs git diff, sends changes to Codex for thorough review, and synthesizes findings.
review-responder
Use when receiving feedback on code you implemented, responding to reviewer comments, deciding which review suggestions to implement, or pushing back on incorrect review feedback.
pr-sweep
Use when you want to sweep all open pull requests across all repos, triage their status, run code reviews on unreviewed PRs, merge what's ready, fix quick blockers, and produce a full status report. Trigger when the user says "check my PRs", "close out open PRs", "what's the status of my PRs", "sweep my PRs", "PR…
rubber-ducky
Use when you've planned a non-trivial change and are about to implement it, finished a complex or multi-file piece of work, just wrote tests, or are stuck on repeated failures — and any time the user says "rubber duck this", "rubber ducky", "get a second opinion", "sanity-check my plan", "poke holes in this", "what am…
open-pr
Use when wrapping up a development task and getting a PR ready — runs local tests, creates a PR (if one doesn't exist) with a structured description template, conducts a code review via the review skill, and checks CI status with quick fixes. Trigger when the user says they're done with a feature, want to open a PR…