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 keithhegit/ultra-orchestration --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/keithhegit/ultra-orchestrationWrote 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/keithhegit/ultra-orchestration/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/keithhegit/ultra-orchestration/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/keithhegit/ultra-orchestration/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/keithhegit/ultra-orchestration/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/keithhegit/ultra-orchestration/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 | $0.00038 | $0.00143 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00057 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00029 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00014 |
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.
What it actually says
Code Review
Review implementation results with a production mindset.
Check
- Spec compliance
- Correctness and regression risk
- Evidence quality
- Missing tests or verification gaps
- Unintended scope expansion
Use review lenses from ../ultra-orchestrator/references/review-lenses.md.
Output
Lead with findings. If there are no findings, state that explicitly and note remaining verification gaps.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 23 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 202099515720
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository keithhegit/ultra-orchestration (6 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 143 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
gsd-ns-review
Invoke this Pi skill with /skill:gsd-ns-review.
kiro-review
Review a task implementation against approved specs, task boundaries, and verification evidence. Use after an implementer finishes a task, after remediation, or before accepting a task as complete.
best-practices
Apply modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities".
review
Review code changes for security, performance, bugs, and quality. Reviews staged changes, unstaged changes, specific commits, or PR-ready diffs.
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…