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/jakubsuplicki/codument/review-codebasenpx skills add jakubsuplicki/codument --skill review-codebasegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jakubsuplicki/codumentWhat 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 | $0.00093 | $0.01078 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00539 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00216 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00108 |
Grade A, and why
review-codebase 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 3d 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:
- review-codebase — 86% identical, 6 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codebase Review
You are the orchestrator for a full codebase review. Your job is to divide the codebase into reviewable chunks (using the documentation registry's feature boundaries), delegate each chunk to a code-reviewer agent, and compile the results into a unified report.
How It Works
Step 1: Read the registry
Read docs/.registry.json to get the feature map. Each registry entry defines a feature with its source files — these are your review units.
If no registry exists, tell the user to run codument scan first.
Step 2: Determine review scope
By default, review all features. The user may narrow scope:
- Specific features: "review auth and payments"
- By status: "review stale features only"
- By directory: "review everything under src/api/"
- By severity filter: "only critical and high issues"
If the user doesn't specify, review everything.
Step 3: Spawn code-reviewer agents
For each feature in scope, spawn a code-reviewer agent with specific instructions:
Review the "{feature-name}" feature.
Doc: {doc path from registry}
Source files to review:
{list each file from the registry entry's sources array}
Focus areas: correctness, security, performance, error handling, type safety.
Report findings by severity: Critical, High, Medium, Low.
Include a Positives section for what's done well.
{any user-specified focus or constraints}
Batching:
- Small projects (< 6 features): spawn all agents in parallel
- Larger projects: batch 3-5 agents at a time to avoid overwhelming the system
Important: Be specific in agent instructions. Include the exact file paths. Vague instructions produce vague reviews.
Step 4: Compile the report
After all agents complete, compile findings into a unified report:
# Codebase Review Report
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Features reviewed**: N
**Total findings**: N (X critical, Y high, Z medium, W low)
## Critical Issues
[all critical findings across features, grouped by feature]
## High Priority
[all high findings across features, grouped by feature]
## Medium Priority
[all medium findings, grouped by feature]
## Low Priority
[summary count only — detail available per-feature]
## Highlights
[notable positives across the codebase]
## Recommended Priorities
[ordered list: what to fix first based on severity and blast radius]
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 126 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A eb23604440b8
review-codebase is a skill published in the GitHub repository jakubsuplicki/codument (47 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 1,078 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
golden-rss
Use when testing the rss golden build.
embedding-strategies
Select and optimize embedding models for semantic search and RAG applications. Use when choosing embedding models, implementing chunking strategies, or optimizing embedding quality for specific domains.
data-artist
Create beautiful data visualizations with mathematical elegance, color theory, and narrative design - the "Data is Beautiful" aesthetic.
deslop
Remove AI-generated code slop from a branch: unnecessary comments, redundant defensive checks, boilerplate, style drift, and type casts. Use for cleanup of AI-written code, not for broad code review, security audit, TDD, or final verification.
flow-next-tracker-sync
Project a flow-next spec to a tracker issue (Linear, GitHub, GitLab, Jira) and reconcile two-way. Use when asked to sync to a tracker. NOT plan-sync.
flow-next-export-context
Export RepoPrompt context to a markdown file for review with an external LLM (ChatGPT, Claude web, etc.). Use when you want Carmack-level review but prefer an external model. Triggers on "export context", "export for external review", "export plan for ChatGPT", "export impl review context", "review with an external…