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 Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills --skill code-review-llmgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skillsWrote 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/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/code-review-llm)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/code-review-llm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/code-review-llm/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/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/code-review-llm"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/code-review-llm.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00073 | $0.01241 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00620 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00248 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00124 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-llm 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 5d 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 — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
LLM Integration Code Review Patterns
Stack-specific rules loaded by dh:code-reviewer when prompt files, model selection logic, or evaluation harness code are detected.
Prompt Hygiene
- System prompt must be separated from user content — mixing them in a single string removes the security boundary
- System prompts must not include user-controlled content unless that content is explicitly sanitized and bounded
- Prompt templates must use structured variable substitution, not string concatenation — f-strings with raw user input are a blocking finding
- Long prompts should be stored in dedicated files, not inline strings — inline multi-line strings are acceptable only below 10 lines
Model Selection
- Model tier must match task complexity — using Opus for tasks that Haiku can handle is a blocking finding (cost regression)
- Using Haiku for tasks requiring multi-step reasoning, architecture decisions, or complex judgment is a blocking finding (quality regression)
- Model selection must be documented with the rationale —
model = "haiku" # retrieval only, no reasoning required - Model names must not be hardcoded as full version strings — use the tier alias (
sonnet,haiku,opus) so upgrades require one change
# WRONG: hardcoded version string
model = "claude-haiku-4-5"
# RIGHT: tier alias — version resolved by the client
model = "claude-haiku-latest"
# or better: configurable
model = config.model_tier # "haiku" | "sonnet" | "opus"
Context Management
- Unbounded context accumulation (appending all messages without a limit) is a blocking finding — long sessions will silently hit context limits and start dropping messages
- Sliding window or summarization strategy must be implemented for conversations expected to exceed ~50 turns
- Token count must be tracked and logged — silent context truncation is harder to debug than explicit overflow handling
Token Economics
- Token count must be estimated before sending requests in batch or high-volume operations — surprise cost overruns from unexpectedly large inputs are preventable
- Fail fast on oversize inputs rather than truncating silently — silent truncation corrupts the task without surfacing an error
- Structured output requests (JSON mode) reduce token waste from freeform formatting — use when parsing responses programmatically
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 119 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 15e7d17bc94d
code-review-llm is a skill published in the GitHub repository Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills (66 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 1,241 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
habit-hooks-prompting
Write or revise a habit-hooks coaching prompt. Use when a linter / knip / jscpd rule fires and the agent's default fix is wrong or shallow, or when adding a project-local override prompt. Keeps prompts short and outcome-focused using the ROSE pattern.
meta-prompting
Enhanced reasoning patterns via slash commands (/think, /verify, /adversarial, /edge, /compare, /confidence, /budget, /constrain, /json, /flip, /assumptions, /tensions, /analyze, /trade) or natural language ("argue against", "what could break", "show reasoning", "deep review", "meta-prompts", "thinking modes"…
review-prompt
Review LLM prompts against the prompt-engineering skill's principles — leading with where each line came from — and report the findings without modifying files. Use when reviewing prompt quality, auditing a prompt, evaluating a system prompt, or checking whether prompt issues are high-confidence and fixable.
refine-prompt
Transforms vague or rough prompts into precise, structured AI instructions. Use when asked to "refine prompt", "improve prompt", "make this prompt better", "promptify", "optimize prompt", "rewrite prompt", "enhance prompt", or "sharpen instructions".
prompts-review
Review all prompts in a codebase for optimality, balancing effectiveness and token efficiency. Covers explicit prompt files, string-literal prompts, and dynamically constructed prompts in code. Use when the user asks to review, audit, or optimize prompts, system messages, LLM instructions, or agent prompts.
prompt-optimization
Applies prompt repetition to improve accuracy for non-reasoning LLMs.