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 kdcokenny/ocx --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kdcokenny/ocxWrote 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/kdcokenny/ocx/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kdcokenny/ocx/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kdcokenny/ocx/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/kdcokenny/ocx/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kdcokenny/ocx/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00014 | $0.00944 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00378 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00094 |
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 18d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- code-review — 100% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Frozen V1 reference. This document is preserved from OCX
e79df6f. Its tool names, models, APIs, and installation instructions describe OpenCode V1. For the supported V2 setup, see the OCX 3 documentation.
Code Review Philosophy
TL;DR
Systematic code review across 4 layers with severity classification. Only report findings with ≥80% confidence. Include file:line references for all issues.
When to Use This Skill
- Before reporting implementation completion
- When explicitly asked to review code
- When using the
/reviewcommand - As an independent audit after code changes
The 4 Review Layers
Layer 1: Correctness
- Logic errors and edge cases
- Error handling completeness
- Type safety and null checks
- Algorithm correctness
- Off-by-one errors
Layer 2: Security
- No hardcoded secrets or API keys
- Input validation and sanitization
- Injection vulnerability prevention (SQL, XSS, command)
- Authentication and authorization checks
- Sensitive data not logged
- OWASP Top 10 awareness
Layer 3: Performance
- No N+1 query patterns
- Appropriate caching strategies
- No unnecessary re-renders (React/frontend)
- Lazy loading where appropriate
- Memory leak prevention
- Algorithmic complexity concerns
Layer 4: Style & Maintainability
- Adherence to project conventions (check AGENTS.md)
- Code duplication (DRY violations)
- Complexity management (cyclomatic complexity)
- Documentation completeness
- Test coverage gaps
Severity Classification
| Severity | Icon | Criteria | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | 🔴 | Security vulnerabilities, crashes, data loss, corruption | Must fix before merge |
| Major | 🟠 | Bugs, performance issues, missing error handling | Should fix |
| Minor | 🟡 | Code smells, maintainability issues, test gaps | Nice to fix |
| Nitpick | 🟢 | Style preferences, naming suggestions, documentation | Optional |
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.
- 18d ago Changed · +2 lines 44c63621713e
- 1mo ago First seen · 106 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 98200cc8992c
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository kdcokenny/ocx (978 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 944 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
hypotheses
Turns a research direction into testable hypotheses with predictions, competing explanations and the experiments that discriminate between them, including the design (controls, randomization, blocking), sample size or seed count, the pre-specified analysis, and the result that would falsify each hypothesis. Use when a…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.
deep-dive
Full execution protocol for MODE: DEEPDIVE — read-only codebase audit with parallel explorer waves, 2 independent reviewers, and sequential critic challenge for HIGH/CRITICAL findings. Loaded on demand by the architect when the deep-dive command emits a [MODE: DEEPDIVE ...] signal.
critic-gate
Full execution protocol for MODE: CRITIC-GATE -- plan critic review, revision loops, and hard stop before execution.
swarm-pr-feedback
Codex adapter for closing known PR feedback in any repository. Use when asked to address pasted review feedback, GitHub review comments or threads, requested changes, CI/check failures, merge conflicts, stale PR branches, or follow-up work that must verify and close all known PR issues.