review-against-solid-principles

review-against-solid-principles is a skill for Claude Code from Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills. It costs 34 tokens per session (524 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A code-review process that checks Python files against the SOLID design principles, a set of guidelines for keeping software responsibilities and dependencies manageable. Several focused reviewers inspect the same code and combine matching findings.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review Python code for SOLID violations and produce a consolidated findings report.
Why use it?
It helps reduce missed or unreliable review findings by checking each principle separately and comparing the reviewers’ results.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: installed under .claude/.

Needs its repository: it reads a path above its own folder, which exists only inside the repository. The line is uv run <scripts>/plan_ensemble.py ../ruleset/solid-rules.json \.

Good fit Use it to review Python code for SOLID violations and produce a consolidated findings report.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install

Getting it into your agent

It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills
agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-against-solid-principles

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for review-against-solid-principles

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-against-solid-principles/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-against-solid-principles)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-against-solid-principles"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-against-solid-principles/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for review-against-solid-principles

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-against-solid-principles"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/review-against-solid-principles.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 34 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 524 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00034 $0.00524
Opus 5 $0.00017 $0.00262
Sonnet 5 $0.00007 $0.00105
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00052

Measured 8d ago against content hash 21c078c14a90, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-11, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review-against-solid-principles 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 8d 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.

examples/solid-review-ab/multi-low-intelligence-focused-agents/.claude/skills/review-against-solid-principles/SKILL.md · 45 lines

What it actually says

Review Against SOLID Principles — Ensemble (Arm B)

Fixed paths (relative to this arm directory, the claude -p working directory):

  • Ruleset: ../ruleset/solid-rules.json
  • Targets: every *.py under ../corpus/cases/
  • Worker reports: ./findings/workers/ (absolute path when calling the planner/workers)
  • Final output: ./findings/findings.md
  • Ensemble scripts: plan_ensemble.py and reduce.py from the ensemble-rule-review skill. From this arm directory they are at ../../../plugins/plugin-creator/skills/ensemble-rule-review/scripts/; the runner may pass an absolute path instead — use whichever it provides.
  1. Plan (deterministic). Run the planner over the shared ruleset, with ./findings/workers/ (as an ABSOLUTE path) as the report dir:

    uv run <scripts>/plan_ensemble.py ../ruleset/solid-rules.json \
      --report-dir "$(pwd)/findings/workers" --window 2 --json
    

    Use the worker assignment and recommended keep-threshold from the planner's output.

  2. Map (parallel). Spawn the principles-reviewer agent once per worker in the plan. Give each its groups + per-group rules as YOUR RULE SLICE, the identical targets (all files under ../corpus/cases/), and its planner outfile. Run all workers in one parallel batch. Workers write location as corpus/cases/<file>:<line>.

  3. Reduce (deterministic). Merge by corroboration on (group, location) and write the ranked result to ./findings/findings.md:

    uv run <scripts>/reduce.py "$(pwd)/findings/workers" --glob 'worker-*.md' \
      --keep-threshold 2 > ./findings/findings.md
    

The reduced, ranked findings in ./findings/findings.md are the arm's output — the scorer parses them against ../corpus/gold.json.

Each principles-reviewer worker emits the fixed candidate schema.

Changes

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.

  1. 8d ago First seen · 45 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 21c078c14a90

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review-against-solid-principles is a skill published in the GitHub repository Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills (66 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 524 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.