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 agentmods add skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/code-reviewnpx skills add jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testersWrote 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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/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 | $0.00076 | $0.00836 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00038 | $0.00418 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00167 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00084 |
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 — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quick Code Review
This skill applies a consistent, lightweight assessment to a small code change. It focuses on key principles of code quality:
- Safety (avoid incorrect assumptions; call out uncertain areas)
- Clarity (structuring comments in positive and actionable form)
- Coverage (address correctness, tests, security, performance, readability)
When to Use
- The user asks for a quick review of a small diff, single file, or snippet.
- A change needs a fast sanity check before a fuller review.
- You need a compact checklist for a routine, low-risk change.
For large or multi-file pull requests, legacy audits, test-automation suites, or high-risk paths (auth, payments, data flows), use code-review-advanced instead.
Skill Behavior
- Start with a summary: what is changing, why, and whether the implementation is aligned with goals.
- Categorize findings:
- ✅ Strengths / wins
- ⚠️ Concerns / risks
- 🛠️ Suggestions / improvements
- Provide
short-termfix guidance pluslong-termdesign thoughts. - Flag any missing tests, docs, or standards violations.
- Respect context: mention the module/file/function names (not generic: "the code").
Quick Review Checklist
-
Correctness
- Does the code do what the ticket/PR describes?
- Are edge cases handled (null, errors, concurrency, format)?
- Any regression risk from changed behavior?
-
Maintainability
- Is the implementation easy to read and reason about?
- Are abstractions and naming appropriate?
- Any repeated logic that should be refactored?
-
Testing
- Are unit and integration tests present and relevant?
- Do tests cover both normal and boundary cases?
- Are tests deterministic and fast?
-
Security & Privacy
- Are user inputs validated/escaped and untrusted data treated carefully?
- Any secrets in code, logs, or config?
- Does the change introduce new permissions, cross-origin, or auth gaps?
-
Performance
- Any obvious O(N^2) loops or hot-path allocations?
- Are caching and batching used when appropriate?
- For network I/O, is retry/backoff and timeout handling present?
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 · 90 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 6d12d0d72150
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers (113 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 836 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
issue-creation
Trigger: issue creation, bug reports, feature requests, or issue approval. Create and triage GitHub issues from repository evidence.
sdd-tasks
Break an SDD change into implementation tasks. Trigger: orchestrator launches task planning for a change.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.
cognitive-doc-design
Design docs that reduce cognitive load. Trigger: writing guides, READMEs, RFCs, onboarding, architecture, or review-facing docs.
skill-review-response
Use when a reviewer, CI bot, or another AI leaves feedback to address.