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 jackfranklin/dotfiles --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jackfranklin/dotfilesWrote 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/jackfranklin/dotfiles/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jackfranklin/dotfiles/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jackfranklin/dotfiles/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/jackfranklin/dotfiles/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jackfranklin/dotfiles/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 75 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00061 | $0.01706 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00682 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00341 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00171 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Harsh, expert code review focused on implementation quality, aggressive simplification, and long-term maintainability. Be ambitious. Do not merely identify local cleanup opportunities; actively search for "code judo" moves that make the implementation dramatically simpler and more elegant.
Core Principles
- Code Judo: Actively look for restructurings that delete complexity rather than rearranging it. Reframe the problem so branches, helpers, or layers disappear entirely.
- Zero Spaghetti: Ban ad-hoc conditionals and scattered special cases in unrelated flows. Push logic into dedicated abstractions or state machines.
- Direct & Boring: Prefer explicit, legible code over hacky, magical, or thin abstractions that add indirection without value.
- Strict Boundaries: Enforce clean type contracts. Flag unnecessary optionality,
any,unknown, or excessive casting. Banishas anyunless explicitly permitted. - Canonical Home: Put logic in the correct layer and reuse existing utilities instead of building bespoke ones.
Workflow
- Context: Read the commit message (if any) and identify staged/unstaged changes. When diffing against a base branch, use
git diff <base>...HEAD(three-dot range) rather thangit diff $(git merge-base <base> HEAD) HEAD— the three-dot form avoids a subshell so it matches the Bash permission allowlist without extra prompts. - Scope: Review each changed file statically (do not build or run tests). Inspect the diff and read unchanged files (signatures, constants, types) to understand the full impact.
- Apply Checklists: For each file, evaluate changes against the checklists below.
- Report: Synthesize observations into a single cohesive report, grouped by impact (critical bugs, architectural, minor).
Review Checklist
Do not approve merely because the code works. Apply the following checks:
1. Code Smells Baseline (Fowler Refactoring, Ch. 3)
Review the diff against this checklist of common smells. Each smell is a judgment call, never a hard violation. A documented repository standard overrides this baseline.
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 Changed · -1 lines 13aa8018620c
- 1mo ago First seen · 95 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 3d9448eec1c1
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jackfranklin/dotfiles (254 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 1,706 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…