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 Jarroslav/agentic-os --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Jarroslav/agentic-osWrote 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/jarroslav/agentic-os/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jarroslav/agentic-os/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jarroslav/agentic-os/code-review/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/jarroslav/agentic-os/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jarroslav/agentic-os/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00149 | $0.02619 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00060 | $0.01048 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00524 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00262 |
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 2mo 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 — 241 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
code-review
On-demand, git-native code review for a working copy. You resolve a scope, write the diff to a file, invoke the downstream orchestrator inline, then read back and render its verdict. You do three things and nothing more:
Prepare context → Invoke orchestrator → Present verdict.
All the actual review reasoning — the blind, edge-case, and acceptance
lenses, standards/security adjudication, finding triage, and the machine verdict —
lives in the code-review-orchestrator skill. You do not reason about the code
yourself and you do not duplicate lens logic. Reuse the orchestrator's folded
lens definitions at ../code-review-orchestrator/references/review-lenses.md;
do not restate or diverge from them.
Blast radius
R0 — read-only. You compute diffs and write run artifacts under a run directory.
You never modify tracked source and never apply a fix the orchestrator recommends.
Relationship to the pipeline
Managed SDLC entry flows (sdlc-guided, sdlc-auto, sdlc-brief,
sdlc-engine) route the review gate through gate-arbiter, which records the
verdict to a gate ledger and may escalate. This skill is the standalone
front-door: it calls code-review-orchestrator directly, bypassing
gate-arbiter entirely — no gate ledger, no escalation.
Two shared gate-arbiter gate ids exist for this review; keep both verbatim:
| Gate id | Round | Used by this skill? |
|---|---|---|
code-review.final |
First/final review of the complete change | Yes — this is the gate you invoke under |
code-review.check |
Follow-up check round re-scoring prior findings | No — pipeline check-rounds only |
Because you only ever run code-review.final, the verdict carries no
finding_status field, and you never pass prior_verdict or memory_brief.
Inputs
| Input | Required | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
target |
optional | Scope in the user's words: a range, a named scope, and/or paths |
spec |
optional | Path to an acceptance-criteria / story doc for business review |
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 241 lines · 149 tokens per session scan A 5515a374276b
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Jarroslav/agentic-os (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 149 tokens to every session and 2,619 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…