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 int2t05/engineering-skills --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/int2t05/engineering-skillsWrote 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/int2t05/engineering-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/int2t05/engineering-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/int2t05/engineering-skills/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/int2t05/engineering-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/int2t05/engineering-skills/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00418 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00167 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00084 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00042 |
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 5d 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.
What it actually says
Code Review
When to use
- Review a scoped change for correctness, coverage and material risk.
Not for: debugging for reproduction; purity-audit for residue.
Steps
-
Choose pre-merge, in-flight, evidence-gate or receiving mode and inspect actual diff, contracts, callers and checks; review is read-only unless fixes were requested.
-
Trace consequential state, permission, error and regression paths; evaluate requirement coverage separately from code quality.
-
Recheck material findings against source and a concrete failing scenario; seek independent review only when authorized and justified.
-
Report high-confidence findings with severity, location, evidence and remedy; persistent tracking needs an approved path, not speculative code TODOs.
Output: Suggested paths, subject to human audit: docs/TODO.md only for agreed durable tracking; otherwise conversation.
Verify
- Material findings have checked scenarios and evidence; reviewed, fixed and verified states remain distinct.
References
- engineering-principles.md — shared decision boundaries, scope and verification.
- human-audit.md — document consent, readability and human review.
- clean-code.md — naming, functions, smells.
- mermaid-diagrams.md — diagram structure when reviewing architecture.
- references/review-modes.md — the three non-default modes in full: in-flight adversarial doubt, evidence-gate verification, receiving review feedback.
- references/tech-debt-register.md — upgrade TODO.md to a prioritized register: interest/principal/risk/effort, paydown cadence, accepted-debt decisions.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 5d ago Changed · -95 lines · -85 tokens per session 36bdac83225c
- 11d ago Changed · +3 lines eecb48e864f8
- 1mo ago First seen · 130 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A 1f1da23352d3
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository int2t05/engineering-skills (3 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 418 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-workflow
Crear pull requests completas con descripcion, labels y reviewers.
commit
A Git workflow skill that completes a TDD cycle by committing changes after required review, tests, logs, and retrospective checks pass. Git is a version-control system that records code changes and commits.
deep-implement
Implements code from /deep-plan section files with TDD methodology, code review, and git workflow. Use when implementing plans created by /deep-plan.
review
A review workflow for either a written implementation plan or the code changes shown by Git. It selects a review mode, checks the project workflow state, and reports review findings.
release
Cut a brooks-lint release: set the version in package.json, propagate it across all four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file (README badges, docs site metadata), write the CHANGELOG entry, validate, then commit, push, tag, and publish the GitHub release. Triggers when the maintainer asks to "release"…
pr
Comprehensive PR/issue review - analyzes architecture, tests, identifies unrelated changes mixed in, drafts review comment or issue comment. Use when user asks to review a PR, check a PR, look at PR changes, or comment on an issue.