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 kid-sid/codex-spellbook --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kid-sid/codex-spellbookWrote 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/kid-sid/codex-spellbook/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kid-sid/codex-spellbook/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kid-sid/codex-spellbook/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/kid-sid/codex-spellbook/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kid-sid/codex-spellbook/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 | $0.00040 | $0.00603 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00241 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00121 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00060 |
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 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Review code for correctness first, then for safety, operability, and maintainability.
When to Activate
- Review a pull request before approval
- Audit a migration or rollout plan
- Check for missing tests on changed logic
- Evaluate API or schema contract changes
- Inspect security-sensitive authentication code
- Separate blockers from optional cleanup
- Summarize review findings for a teammate
Review Order
| Priority | Check |
|---|---|
| 1 | Logic correctness and regression risk |
| 2 | Security, privacy, and data integrity |
| 3 | Test coverage and validation gaps |
| 4 | Performance, scaling, and resource usage |
| 5 | Style, naming, and cleanup |
Blocking vs Suggestion
| Comment Type | Use When | Prefix |
|---|---|---|
| Blocking | Incorrect behavior, security hole, migration risk, broken contract | Blocking: |
| Suggestion | Readability improvement, minor cleanup, non-critical refactor | Suggestion: |
| Question | Intent or assumption is unclear | Question: |
What to Check
| Area | Questions |
|---|---|
| Logic | Are edge cases, retries, and failure paths handled? |
| Security | Are auth checks, secrets, and untrusted inputs handled safely? |
| Tests | Do tests cover new behavior and likely regressions? |
| Performance | Does this add N+1 queries, repeated allocations, or hot-loop work? |
| API contracts | Will clients or jobs break on shape changes? |
| Migrations | Is rollout safe across old and new code versions? |
| Error handling | Are failures explicit, typed, and observable? |
Tone
| Preferred | Avoid |
|---|---|
| Direct, specific, file-scoped feedback | Vague comments like "this feels wrong" |
| Explain impact | Nitpicks framed as blockers |
| Offer a fix path when practical | Personal or emotional language |
BAD
This code is bad. Please redo.
GOOD
Blocking: [payments/service.ts] charge retries on 500 but not on timeout, so transient network failures can still drop payments. Add retry handling for socket timeout errors and cover it with a test.
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 · 79 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A ff68c052049c
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository kid-sid/codex-spellbook (22 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 603 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 2026-08-30.
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"…
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…
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…