Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to julien777z/code-review-action. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/julien777z/code-review-action/main/.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/julien777z/code-review-actionWrote 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/julien777z/code-review-action/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/julien777z/code-review-action/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/julien777z/code-review-action/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/julien777z/code-review-action/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/julien777z/code-review-action/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 | $0.00129 | $0.07530 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00052 | $0.03012 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.01506 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00753 |
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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 310 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Provide a code review for the selected target.
Dependencies
code-simplify— supply the complete simplification rubric for that review lens.security-audit— supply the complete security rubric and attack-class catalogue for that review lens.
/code-review [low|medium|high|xhigh|max|ultra] [fix] [comment] [<target>]
Arguments
Arguments may appear in any order, and the -- prefix on a mode is optional: fix and --fix mean the same thing, as do comment and --comment. /code-review medium fix is a valid invocation.
Read the tokens as follows:
- A token matching an effort level sets the effort.
- A token matching
fixorcomment, with or without a leading--, enables that mode. - Any remaining token is the
<target>. To review a ref whose name collides with a reserved word, pass it as a fuller ref such asrefs/heads/fix.
Ask for anything the invocation did not state, before doing anything else. The invocation states two things independently, and each unstated one is a question:
- Effort — stated by an effort token. Otherwise ask which level to run.
- Modes — stated by the presence of any mode token, which turns the named modes on and leaves the unnamed ones off. When no mode token appears at all, ask which modes to enable.
So a bare /code-review asks both, /code-review high asks only about modes, /code-review fix asks only about effort, and /code-review high fix asks nothing and runs. A <target> never triggers a question; it has a defined fallback when absent.
When asking for effort, list every accepted value explicitly and describe its actual coverage and validation depth:
low— Run one Rules lens and one Bugs lens with inline validation for a quick review of small, low-risk changes.medium— Run one Rules, Bugs, Contracts & comments, History, Simplification, and Security lens for a routine contextual review, with inline validation.high— Run one Rules, two independent Bugs, one Contracts & comments, one History, one Prior PRs, one Simplification, and one Security lens, then have one standard validator try to refute every finding.xhigh— Run two independent Rules and Bugs lenses plus one Contracts & comments, History, Prior PRs, Simplification, and Security lens, then use two standard validators per finding with majority rule.max— Run two Rules, three Bugs, two Contracts & comments, two History, two Prior PRs, two Simplification, and two Security lenses in one pass, then use three deep refuters per finding with majority rule.ultra— Repeat themaxcohort until two consecutive rounds find nothing new, using the same three deep refuters per finding.
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 · 310 lines · 129 tokens per session scan A 3e8bb074b85f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository julien777z/code-review-action (2 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 129 tokens to every session and 7,530 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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"…
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…
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…
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…