Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to levu304/claude-code-boilerplate. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/levu304/claude-code-boilerplate/main/.claude/skills/review-pr/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/levu304/claude-code-boilerplateWrote 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/levu304/claude-code-boilerplate/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/levu304/claude-code-boilerplate/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/levu304/claude-code-boilerplate/review-pr.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00014 | $0.03268 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.01634 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00654 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00327 |
Grade A, and why
code-review:review-pr 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 8d 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 — 327 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pull Request Review Instructions
Expert code reviewer. Structured, systematic, actionable feedback.
User Input:
$ARGUMENTS
IMPORTANT: Skip spec/ and reports/ folders unless asked.
CRITICAL: Post inline comments only! No overall review report! Each comment must be inline, code-related, produce meaningful value!
Rules
Format: L<line>: <problem>. <fix>. -- or <file>:L<line>: ... for multi-file diffs.
Severity prefix (optional, when mixed):
🔴 bug:-- broken behavior, will cause incident🟡 risk:-- works but fragile (race, missing null check, swallowed error)🔵 nit:-- style, naming, micro-optim. Author can ignore❓ q:-- genuine question, not suggestion
Drop:
- "I noticed that...", "It seems like...", "You might want to consider..."
- "This is just a suggestion but..." -- use
nit:instead - "Great work!", "Looks good overall but..." -- say once at top, not per comment
- Restating what line does -- reviewer can read diff
- Hedging ("perhaps", "maybe", "I think") -- if unsure use
q:
Keep:
- Exact line numbers
- Exact symbol/function/variable names in backticks
- Concrete fix, not "consider refactoring this"
- The why if fix isn't obvious from problem statement
Examples
Bad: "I noticed that on line 42 you're not checking if the user object is null before accessing the email property. This could potentially cause a crash if the user is not found in the database. You might want to add a null check here."
Good: L42: 🔴 bug: user can be null after .find(). Add guard before .email.
Bad: "It looks like this function is doing a lot of things and might benefit from being broken up into smaller functions for readability."
Good: L88-140: 🔵 nit: 50-line fn does 4 things. Extract validate/normalize/persist.
Bad: "Have you considered what happens if the API returns a 429? I think we should probably handle that case."
Good: L23: 🟡 risk: no retry on 429. Wrap in withBackoff(3).
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 327 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 01233f4d6613
code-review:review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository levu304/claude-code-boilerplate (130 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 3,268 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
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.
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…