Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to irahardianto/rugged-gemini. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/irahardianto/rugged-gemini/main/.gemini/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/irahardianto/rugged-geminiWrote 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/irahardianto/rugged-gemini/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/irahardianto/rugged-gemini/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/irahardianto/rugged-gemini/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00036 | $0.02012 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.01006 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00402 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00201 |
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 6d 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 — 218 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Skill
Systematically review against full rule set. Catches what linters miss: arch violations, missing observability, logic errors, pattern inconsistencies.
When to Invoke
- Audit workflows (Phase 1: Code Review)
- User-requested review
- Best: fresh conversation (avoid confirmation bias)
Review Process
1. Scope
- Feature review — all files in feature dir
- PR review — changed files only
- Full audit — all features
2. Load Rules
Apply rules from GEMINI.md. Use Rule Priority (§ Rule Priority) for severity.
3. Categories (Priority Order)
Critical (Must Fix):
- [SEC] Security — injection, hardcoded secrets, broken auth
- [DATA] Data integrity — missing error handling on writes, no transactions
- [RES] Resource leaks — unclosed connections, missing cleanup
Major (Should Fix):
- [TEST] Testability — I/O not behind interfaces, untested error paths
- [OBS] Observability — missing logging, no correlation IDs
- [ERR] Error handling — empty catch, swallowed errors
- [ARCH] Architecture — circular deps, wrong layer access
Minor (Nice to Fix):
- [PAT] Pattern consistency — deviation from codebase patterns
- Naming — unclear names
- Organization — fns too long, mixed responsibilities
Nit: style (linter catches), missing comments on complex logic.
4. Findings Output
# Code Review: {Feature/Module Name}
Date: {date}
Reviewer: AI Agent (fresh context)
## Summary
- **Files reviewed:** N
- **Issues found:** N (X critical, Y major, Z minor, W nit)
## Critical Issues
- [ ] **[SEC]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
- [ ] **[DATA]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
## Major Issues
- [ ] **[TEST]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
- [ ] **[OBS]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
## Minor Issues
- [ ] **[PAT]** {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
## Nit
- [ ] {description} — [{file}:{line}](file:///path)
## Rules Applied
List of rules referenced.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 6d ago First seen · 218 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 507b7bc1015f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository irahardianto/rugged-gemini (5 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 2,012 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.