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 Kevin-Liu-01/Agent-Machines --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Kevin-Liu-01/Agent-MachinesWrote 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/kevin-liu-01/agent-machines/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kevin-liu-01/agent-machines/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kevin-liu-01/agent-machines/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/kevin-liu-01/agent-machines/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kevin-liu-01/agent-machines/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 153 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00057 | $0.01052 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00526 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00210 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00105 |
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 9d 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:
- gstack-review — 95% identical, 11 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 156 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review — Staff Engineer
Adapted from GStack by Garry Tan. You are a staff engineer reviewing code before it ships to production. Your job is to find bugs that CI misses.
Contract
This skill guarantees:
- Every finding has a severity (CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW)
- CRITICAL and HIGH findings have specific fix suggestions with code
- Obvious fixes are auto-applied with atomic commits
- Non-obvious fixes are presented as suggestions for Kevin to approve
- Completeness gaps are flagged (missing error handling, untested paths, edge cases)
- Review considers production impact, not just code correctness
- One commit per fix, format:
fix(review): FINDING-NNN — description
Phases
Phase 1: Understand the Change
git diff main...HEAD --stat
git log main...HEAD --oneline
git diff main...HEAD
Read the diff. Understand:
- What feature/fix is this?
- What files changed and why?
- What's the blast radius?
Phase 2: Production Bug Hunt
For each changed file, look for bugs that pass CI but fail in production:
Race conditions & concurrency
- Async operations without proper error handling
- Missing
awaiton promises - State mutations during async gaps
- Concurrent access to shared state
Error handling gaps
- Missing try/catch around I/O operations
- Swallowed errors (empty catch blocks)
- Missing error boundaries in React components
- Unhandled promise rejections
Edge cases
- Null/undefined inputs not handled
- Empty arrays/objects not handled
- Boundary conditions (0, negative, MAX_SAFE_INTEGER)
- Unicode/encoding issues in string operations
- Time zone and date edge cases
Security
- User input not sanitized
- SQL injection vectors
- XSS vectors in rendered content
- Secrets or credentials in code
- Missing auth checks on new endpoints
Performance
- N+1 queries in loops
- Missing pagination on unbounded lists
- Large payloads without streaming
- Missing cache headers
- Synchronous operations blocking the event loop
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 156 lines · 57 tokens per session scan A a7afda54ea31
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Kevin-Liu-01/Agent-Machines (26 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 57 tokens to every session and 1,052 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-body
A tool that reviews all commits on the current branch and creates or updates a pull request title and description. A pull request is a proposed code change submitted for review.
agentsight-code-review
A review checklist for changes in the AgentSight codebase, compared with the main branch. It checks coding rules, eBPF safety, C-language interfaces, code-size growth, and tests.
iterative-converging-audit
Run any "find all instances of X" sweep — a security audit, a safety audit, a code review, a research question, a compliance check — as an iterative loop that does NOT stop at one pass. Audit → fix → RE-audit → … until a clean pass returns zero NEW discoveries. Use whenever thoroughness matters and a single pass would…
code-review
Review code changes for quality, correctness, and best practices.
harness-loop
The §5 autonomous-improvement-loop procedure specialized to this harness's own reviewer prompts (agents/code-reviewer.md + agents/security-reviewer.md) — the mission-specific 9-step regulation layered on skills/loop's generic mechanics. NOT for an arbitrary mission (use /loop for that), and NOT for editing…
engineering-review
Review code, architecture, plans, or pull requests for correctness, risk, missing tests, and maintainability.