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 johnku2011/boilerplates-with-ai-skills --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/johnku2011/boilerplates-with-ai-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/johnku2011/boilerplates-with-ai-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/johnku2011/boilerplates-with-ai-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnku2011/boilerplates-with-ai-skills/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/johnku2011/boilerplates-with-ai-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/johnku2011/boilerplates-with-ai-skills/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, 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 79 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00028 | $0.00625 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00250 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00125 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00063 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Overview
Give a focused, constructive review of a change. Separate blocking issues from optional suggestions. Review the work product (diff + tests), not the author's process.
Core principle: Review early, review often — before merge, not after production.
When to Review
Mandatory:
- Before merging to the main branch
- After completing a major feature or multi-file change
- When security-sensitive paths change (auth, payments, user data)
Valuable:
- After fixing a non-trivial bug (regression check)
- Before a large refactor (baseline sanity check)
Process
- Read the change description and confirm it matches the diff.
- Identify scope: which files, routes, or modules changed and why.
- Check correctness: edge cases, error handling, and inputs that could break.
- Check tests: is new behavior covered? Do existing tests still pass?
- Check readability: clear names, small functions, no dead code.
- Check boundaries: server-only code must not leak to client bundles or logs.
- Note security concerns as blocking (see
project-securityskill).
Review Checklist
| Area | Blocking if… |
|---|---|
| Correctness | Wrong logic, missing error handling, race conditions |
| Tests | New behavior untested; tests deleted without replacement |
| Security | Unvalidated input, secrets in code/logs, missing auth |
| API shape | Breaking changes without migration or docs |
| Performance | Obvious N+1, unbounded loops, sync I/O on hot paths |
Output Format
Use this structure every time:
## Blocking
- [file:line] Issue — concrete fix
## Suggestions
- [file:line] Optional improvement
## Verdict
approve | approve-with-nits | request-changes
- List blocking issues first, each with a concrete fix.
- Then non-blocking suggestions.
- End with an explicit verdict.
Integration with TDD
If the change adds behavior without a failing test first, that is a blocking issue unless the author documents why (e.g. config-only change). Ask for tests that prove the behavior.
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 · 89 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A a6858b529dea
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository johnku2011/boilerplates-with-ai-skills (239 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 625 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
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…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…