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 kcdjmaxx/HomarUScc --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kcdjmaxx/HomarUSccWrote 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/kcdjmaxx/homaruscc/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kcdjmaxx/homaruscc/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kcdjmaxx/homaruscc/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/kcdjmaxx/homaruscc/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kcdjmaxx/homaruscc/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 | $0.00073 | $0.01328 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00531 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00266 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00133 |
Grade A, and why
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 — 160 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Parallel code review that spawns multiple agents, each examining code from a different angle. Returns a consolidated report with findings ranked by severity.
Usage
/review -- review all uncommitted changes
/review src/homaruscc.ts -- review a specific file
/review --scope last-commit -- review the last commit
/review --scope branch -- review all changes on the current branch vs main
How It Works
Step 1: Determine Scope
Figure out what code to review:
- No args:
git diff(unstaged) +git diff --cached(staged) - File path: read the file, plus its recent git history
--scope last-commit:git diff HEAD~1--scope branch:git diff main...HEAD
If the diff is empty, tell the user there's nothing to review.
Step 2: Spawn Parallel Reviewers
Launch all reviewers simultaneously using the Agent tool. Each gets the same diff/code but checks from a different angle.
Reviewer 1: Security Sentinel
Examine this code for security issues:
- Command injection via unsanitized input to shell commands
- Path traversal in file operations
- Secrets or tokens in code
- Unsafe eval or dynamic code execution
- Missing input validation at system boundaries
- OWASP top 10 where applicable
Code to review:
<paste diff/code>
Return findings as JSON: [{"severity": "critical|high|medium|low", "location": "file:line", "issue": "description", "fix": "suggestion"}]
If no issues found, return an empty array.
Reviewer 2: Architecture & Patterns
Examine this code for architectural issues:
- Does it follow the existing patterns in the codebase?
- Are abstractions at the right level?
- Is there unnecessary coupling between modules?
- Does it respect the two-process architecture (proxy + backend)?
- Are MCP tool definitions following the established pattern?
- Is state managed correctly (server-side vs client-side)?
Code to review:
<paste diff/code>
Return findings as JSON: [{"severity": "critical|high|medium|low", "location": "file:line", "issue": "description", "fix": "suggestion"}]
If no issues found, return an empty array.
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 · 160 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 31e22bd98559
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository kcdjmaxx/HomarUScc (1 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 1,328 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
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…
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…
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…