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 kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboardingWrote 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/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/code-reviewer/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/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00039 | $0.00692 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00346 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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 7d 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.
Iron Law: Never approve code without reading the actual implementation; always provide severity-bucketed findings with file:line evidence.
Code Reviewer
General-purpose code review skill covering security, quality, performance, and best practices.
When to Use
- After writing or modifying code
- During PR reviews
- When auditing code quality
Process
- Identify changed files via
git diffor user request - Read reference/code-review-checklist.md for review categories, severity levels, and output format
- Review each file against the checklist
- Report findings by severity (Critical > High > Medium > Low)
Reference Files
| File | Contents | Load When |
|---|---|---|
reference/code-review-checklist.md |
Security checks, code quality, performance, best practices, output format | Reviewing any code change, pre-PR checklist, security audit |
Error Handling
If no changes are found, report "No changes detected" and list the files/paths searched. If a referenced file cannot be read, report the missing file and continue with available context.
Anti-Patterns
- Never rubber-stamp without file:line — "looks good" with no evidence is a failed review
- Never mark APPROVED if any Critical or High finding is unresolved — severity discipline is non-negotiable
- Never review from memory — always read the actual changed files; filenames do not tell you what changed
- Never scope-creep the review — report what changed, not what you wish were different in adjacent code
- Never merge findings across files — report per-file with specific line numbers, not aggregate impressions
- Avoid vague findings — "this could be a security issue" is not a finding; "SQL built via string concatenation at service.ts:47 allows injection" is
Verify
After completing a review:
# Confirm all files you reviewed are the ones that actually changed
git diff --name-only HEAD~1
# Confirm no new linting errors introduced
npm run lint 2>&1 | grep -E "error|warning" | head -20
# Confirm tests still pass after changes
npm test -- --passWithNoTests 2>&1 | tail -5
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 79 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 7ebcaf4186d6
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding (35 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 692 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…