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 julianobarbosa/claude-code-skills --skill reviewing-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/julianobarbosa/claude-code-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/julianobarbosa/claude-code-skills/reviewing-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/julianobarbosa/claude-code-skills/reviewing-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/julianobarbosa/claude-code-skills/reviewing-code/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/julianobarbosa/claude-code-skills/reviewing-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/julianobarbosa/claude-code-skills/reviewing-code.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 | $0.00044 | $0.00382 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00191 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00076 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00038 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-code 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.
What it actually says
Code Review with Codex
Use mcp__codex__spawn_agent for code review.
When to Use
- Review code quality and patterns
- Find potential bugs or edge cases
- Validate against best practices
- Check for security issues
Usage
{
"prompt": "Review this code for [quality/bugs/security]: [code or file]"
}
Prompt Examples
- "Review for code quality and Go best practices: [code]"
- "Analyze for security vulnerabilities: [code]"
- "Review for performance issues: [code]"
- "Does this follow idiomatic patterns? [code]"
Gotchas
- Codex review is non-deterministic — same code with different invocations gets different priority orderings; pin model version when reproducibility matters.
- Codex doesn't see staged-but-uncommitted changes by default — pass them explicitly via
--include-stagedor piped diff. - Diff-only review misses cross-file effects — a renamed function's callsite in another file isn't in the diff, so the rename's blast radius isn't surfaced.
- Review output ranks by Codex's internal severity heuristic — not by user-defined priority; re-rank manually for project-specific concerns.
- Whitespace-only diffs trigger reviews — pass
--ignore-whitespaceor you get noise. - Large diffs (>500 LOC) get summarized, not reviewed line-by-line — split into focused reviews per file group.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 43 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A e6950f97d78d
reviewing-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository julianobarbosa/claude-code-skills (10 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 382 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
gsd-ns-review
Route to the appropriate quality / review skill based on the user's intent. gsd-code-review-fix was absorbed by gsd-code-review --fix in #2790.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
gitnexus
A code-graph analysis add-on for examining an existing codebase, including symbols, call paths, execution flows, and effects across repositories. It can query GitNexus through its command-line or MCP interfaces.
cleanup-code-inspections
Reduce technical debt and improve code quality by systematically resolving static analysis warnings.
sonarqube-mcp
Provides SonarQube and SonarCloud integration patterns via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. Enables quality gate monitoring, issue discovery and triaging, pre-push code analysis, and rule education directly in the agent workflow. Use when the user wants to check quality gates, search for Sonar issues, analyze…