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 Leavesfly/Jimi --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Leavesfly/JimiWrote 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/leavesfly/jimi/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/leavesfly/jimi/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/leavesfly/jimi/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/leavesfly/jimi/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/leavesfly/jimi/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 | $0.00009 | $0.00741 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00074 |
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.
The source is not reproduced here
No licence file
A repository with no LICENSE is all rights reserved by default, so the body is not copied here. The metadata, the measurements and the link are.
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 · 78 lines · 9 tokens per session scan A 1d11d5ef817c
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Leavesfly/Jimi (237 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), with no licence file. It adds 9 tokens to every session and 741 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
code-review
Reviews Spec Kit code changes for consistency with applicable design documents, positive and negative test coverage, regression evidence for bug fixes, and consistent repository terminology. Use when reviewing a diff or pull request. Do not use for implementing changes or posting GitHub review actions.
code-review-web
Review web application code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and stack-specific anti-patterns. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review code, debug a production issue, investigate a build failure, audit security, or check a PR before merging. Triggers on code review, review my code, debug…
code-quality-principles
Applies KISS, YAGNI, and SOLID principles for clean code with reduced complexity. Use when refactoring or reviewing code for over-engineering.
octocode-roast
Use when code needs a blunt evidence-backed roast or memorable critique: smell inventory, debt ranking, hot-path autopsy, savage/diff review, security or performance sins, or practical redemption paths. Phrases like roast this, brutal review, top sins, cleanup debt. Polite evidence-first PR review → octocode-research.
brooks-lint
AI code reviewer grounded in classic software engineering books for catching design smells, coupling issues, and architectural risks.
logic-lens
AI-powered Claude Code skill that performs deep code review using formal logic and reasoning frameworks to detect bugs, anti-patterns, and security risks beyond what linters catch.