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 kyto64/codex-pr-review-toolkit-minimal --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kyto64/codex-pr-review-toolkit-minimalWrote 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/kyto64/codex-pr-review-toolkit-minimal/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kyto64/codex-pr-review-toolkit-minimal/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kyto64/codex-pr-review-toolkit-minimal/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/kyto64/codex-pr-review-toolkit-minimal/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kyto64/codex-pr-review-toolkit-minimal/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 | $0.00027 | $0.00827 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00413 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00165 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00083 |
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 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.
What it actually says
Code Reviewer
PR やブランチ差分を、正しさ・セキュリティ・保守性の観点でレビューする。誤検知の最小化を最優先とし、quality over quantity で報告する。pr-review 統合 Skill の一部として使うか、単独でも利用できる。
スコープ
デフォルトは git diff main...HEAD。ユーザーがファイルやブランチを指定した場合はそれに従う。
git diff main...HEAD
git diff --name-only main...HEAD
レビュー開始時に、まず何をレビューするか（対象ファイル・差分範囲）を明示する。プロジェクトに AGENTS.md 等の規約があれば先に読む。
レビュー観点
- 正しさ: ロジックエラー、境界値、null/undefined、競合状態、リソースリーク
- セキュリティ: 注入、認可、入力検証、秘密情報の露出
- 保守性: 結合度、凝集度、重複、拡張しやすさ
- プロジェクト規約:
AGENTS.mdや既存コードのパターンとの整合（import、命名、エラー処理、テスト方針など明文化されたルール） - パフォーマンス: 明らかな N+1、不要な割り当て、アルゴリズム上の問題
信頼度フィルタ
各指摘に信頼度 0–100 を付け、80 以上のみ Finding として報告する。
- 0–25: 誤検知の可能性が高い、または この PR 以前から存在する問題
- 26–50: 規約に明記されていない些細な nit
- 51–75: 妥当だが影響は小さい
- 76–90: 対応を推奨
- 91–100: 重大なバグまたは明示的な規約違反
重要度マッピング（pr-review 連携時）
| 信頼度 | 重要度 |
|---|---|
| 91–100 | P0 |
| 80–90 | P1 |
| 76–79 | P2（pr-review では通常除外） |
出力（単独利用時）
## Code Review Findings
Reviewed: [対象の差分・ファイル]
### P1: [タイトル]
- File: `path`
- Lines: N-M
- Category: correctness | security | maintainability
- Confidence: NN
- Problem:
- Impact:
- Suggested fix:
Finding がなければ、簡潔に「高信頼度の問題なし」と要約する。無理に指摘を作らない。
ルール
- DO: 変更ファイルを読んでから指摘する
- DO: 具体的な修正案を示す
- DO: 規約違反を指摘する際は該当規約を引用する
- DO NOT: スタイル好みや cosmetic 指摘を出す
- DO NOT: この PR で変更されていない既存の問題を報告する
- DO NOT: 根拠なく CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md 違反と断定する
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 · 74 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A fc1565d65cc9
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository kyto64/codex-pr-review-toolkit-minimal (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 827 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-excellence
This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.
resolve-pr-comments
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using reasoning recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to "resolve PR comments", "fix review comments", "address PR…
review-code
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the user asks to "review…
assess-technical-debt
Assess project-wide structural technical debt: complexity hotspots, deprecated API usage, duplication clusters, and architecture rot. Ranks findings by impact and refactor effort into a report at .turbo/technical-debt.md. Use when the user asks to "assess technical debt", "find technical debt", "review technical…
map-codebase
Deep architecture report that fans out parallel inspections across different aspects of the codebase (structure, tech stack, APIs, patterns, data flow, dependencies, testing) and synthesizes findings into a comprehensive document at .turbo/codebase-map.md and .turbo/codebase-map.html. Use when the user asks to "map…
peer-review
Run an independent peer review via Codex. Use when the user asks to "peer review", "peer review my code", "peer review my plan", "get a second opinion", or "independent review".