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 laurigates/claude-plugins --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/laurigates/claude-pluginsWrote 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/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/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/laurigates/claude-plugins/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/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 6 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
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 | $0.01482 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00593 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00296 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00148 |
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 — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When to Use This Skill
| Use this skill when... | Use something else instead when... |
|---|---|
| Running an end-to-end review across quality, security, perf, and tests | Walking a manual security/correctness checklist → code-review-checklist |
| Auditing a directory or PR delta with delegated agent analysis | Specifically scanning for code smells → code-antipatterns |
| Spotting missing test cases or weak assertions | Auditing test code quality on its own → code-test-quality |
| Producing a consolidated review report | Refactoring after the review surfaces issues → code-refactor |
Context
- Review path:
$1(defaults to current directory if not specified)
Parameters
$1: Path to review (defaults to current directory)
Your task
Delegate this task to the agents-plugin:review agent.
Use the Agent tool with subagent_type: agents-plugin:review to perform a comprehensive code review.
First, use the Glob tool to discover source files to review:
**/*.py,**/*.js,**/*.ts,**/*.go,**/*.rsfor source files**/*test*patterns for test files Then pass the discovered files to the agent.
The code-review agent should:
-
Analyze code quality:
- Naming conventions and readability
- Code structure and maintainability
- SOLID principles adherence
-
Security assessment:
- Input validation vulnerabilities
- Authentication and authorization issues
- Secrets and sensitive data exposure
-
Performance evaluation:
- Bottlenecks and inefficiencies
- Memory usage patterns
- Optimization opportunities
-
Architecture review:
- Design patterns usage
- Component coupling
- Dependency management
-
Test coverage gaps:
- Missing test cases
- Edge cases not covered
- Integration test needs
-
Apply fixes where appropriate and safe
-
Re-verify each candidate finding (false-positive gate — run BEFORE reporting): For every candidate finding from steps 1–5, re-read the cited code at the reported
file:lineand confirm the claim actually holds against the current source — not against a remembered or assumed shape. A finding survives only if the re-read confirms it; drop the rest. See "Re-verification Pass" below.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 158 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A a3e2eba497ef
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository laurigates/claude-plugins (59 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,482 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-feedback
Address code review/PR comments: verify each, then fix.
phpunit-test-team-reviewing
Use this skill when the user asks for a team-based, consensus, multi-reviewer, or red-team review of Shopware PHPUnit tests — trigger phrases like "team review these tests", "consensus review the tests in PR.
phpunit-test-reconciling
Internal sub-skill. Do not auto-activate. Use only when explicitly invoked by name by another skill or agent.
audit-comment-residue
Read-only classifier that flags residue in code comments: history narration, plan or session references, conversational asides, ticket or PR back-references, origin notes, and workarounds with no link or removal condition. Use when asked to 'audit code comments' or report which comments only make sense with the chat…
issue-analyzing
Use this skill when the user asks to analyze a specific GitHub issue, understand what area of code an issue affects, assess an issue's scope, or research the code context around an issue — example triggers like "analyze issue.
pr-analyzing
Use this skill when the user asks to analyze a specific GitHub pull request, review a PR's architectural impact, assess what changed in a PR and why it matters, or research the code relationships affected by a PR — example triggers like "analyze PR.