Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to jakubsuplicki/codument. 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/jakubsuplicki/codument/main/.agents/skills/code-reviewer/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jakubsuplicki/codumentWrote 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/jakubsuplicki/codument/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jakubsuplicki/codument/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jakubsuplicki/codument/code-reviewer/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/jakubsuplicki/codument/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jakubsuplicki/codument/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, 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 49 Skill allows unbounded resource consumption (API calls, storage, compute). Without rate limits or quotas, a compromised or misbehaving agent can cause denial-of-service or cost overruns.Fix: Set explicit rate limits, timeouts, and resource quotas for API calls, file operations, and compute. Implement circuit breakers for runaway loops.
- low Excessive Agency · line 95 Skill's behavior or capabilities extend beyond its stated purpose. Scope creep allows an agent to perform actions unrelated to its documented functionality, increasing the attack surface.Fix: Limit the skill's scope to its documented purpose. Remove instructions that enable the agent to perform actions outside its stated functionality.
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 | $0.00119 | $0.00731 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00048 | $0.00292 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00146 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- code-reviewer — 88% identical, 12 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
When reviewing code, follow this structured process:
1. Read First, Judge Second
Read all changed files completely before writing any feedback. Understand the intent and context before critiquing details.
2. Categorize Findings by Severity
- Critical — Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, correctness bugs
- High — Performance issues that will bite in production, error handling gaps, race conditions
- Medium — API design issues, missing validation at system boundaries, type safety gaps
- Low — Style inconsistencies, naming, minor readability improvements
3. What to Check
Correctness
- Does the code do what it claims to do?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values)?
- Are error paths tested and recoverable?
Security
- Input validation at system boundaries (user input, external APIs)
- SQL injection, XSS, command injection risks
- Secrets or credentials in code
- Dependency vulnerabilities
Architecture
- Does this change belong in this module?
- Are the abstractions at the right level?
- Will this be maintainable in 6 months?
- Does it follow the existing patterns in the codebase?
Performance
- O(n²) or worse in hot paths?
- Unbounded queries or collections?
- Missing indexes on queried fields?
- Unnecessary allocations in loops?
Testing
- Are the critical paths covered?
- Do tests verify behavior, not implementation?
- Are edge cases and error paths tested?
4. How to Give Feedback
- Lead with the specific file and line
- State what the issue is, not just that there is one
- Explain WHY it matters, not just that it's wrong
- Suggest a fix when possible
- Distinguish between "must fix" and "consider changing"
5. Output Format
## Code Review: [component/feature name]
**Overall Assessment**: [Good | Needs Work | Critical Issues] — one sentence summary
### Critical Issues
[numbered list or "None found"]
### High Priority
[numbered list with file:line references]
### Medium Priority
[numbered list]
### Low Priority
[numbered list]
### Architecture Positives
[what's done well — always include this]
### Recommended Priorities
[ordered list of what to fix first]
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 First seen · 99 lines · 119 tokens per session scan A 0b6af091ff12
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository jakubsuplicki/codument (48 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 119 tokens to every session and 731 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
remove-ai-slops
Removes AI-generated code smells from branch changes or an explicit file list behind regression tests. Use when the user asks to clean up, deslop, or remove AI-slop patterns from recent changes.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.
check
Auto-fix lint and formatting, then report types and tests. Run before every commit.
code-guidelines-go
Go 1.24–1.27 coding guidelines for the dimetron/pi-go AI agent runtime. Use this skill whenever writing, reviewing, or refactoring ANY Go code in pi-go. This covers idiomatic style, error handling, concurrency, project layout, testing (table-driven, fuzz, benchmarks, synctest), new stdlib usage, golangci-lint v2…
vhs-e2e-gif
Record a test run, a TUI session, or any terminal command as a GIF with VHS and attach it to a GitHub PR as a release-hosted asset, never a repo commit. Use when asked to record an e2e run, demo a fix on a PR, attach a GIF or screen recording to a pull request, show a test passing visually, or produce a terminal…