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 lfyxhappy/lfcode --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lfyxhappy/lfcodeWrote 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/lfyxhappy/lfcode/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lfyxhappy/lfcode/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lfyxhappy/lfcode/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00082 | $0.00307 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00153 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00061 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00031 |
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 2d 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
Review the behavior introduced by a change, not merely the changed lines.
Workflow
- Read repository instructions, current branch, working-tree status, target base, and the full relevant diff.
- Trace each material change into callers, consumers, contracts, persistence, permissions, concurrency, and runtime behavior.
- Look for correctness defects, regressions, security or privacy exposure, compatibility breaks, performance risk, and missing tests.
- Verify uncertain findings with focused reads or safe diagnostics. Order confirmed findings by severity and cite file and line locations.
- State residual risk and meaningful test gaps even when no blocking issue is found.
Boundaries
- Keep a review read-only. Do not edit, stage, commit, push, or change external systems unless the user separately asks for a fix.
- Do not turn style preferences into correctness findings or invent failures without evidence.
- Do not include secrets, private data, or full sensitive logs in review output.
Completion Check
Lead with findings, then list assumptions, test gaps, and a brief change summary.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 27 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A 1f0dc1cd25f7
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository lfyxhappy/lfcode (2 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 307 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
dcc-orchestration
Orchestrate Codex subagents for complex multi-part coding work. Use when independent exploration, review, tests, or bounded implementation streams can run in parallel; do not use for small sequential tasks or tightly coupled concurrent edits.
Implement (multi-agent loop)
Orchestrate an implement -> review -> fix loop with subagents until reviewers sign off.
Review a GitHub PR (via gh)
Review a specific GitHub pull request with gh — fetch the diff, fan out reviewers, consolidate, and optionally post the review. Requires the gh CLI or the GitHub MCP server.
Design doc (write -> review loop)
Draft a design document and iterate writer/reviewer subagents until consensus.
Review changes (multi-agent)
Delegate read-only reviewers over the local changes/branch and consolidate findings.
code-review
A review process for a pull request, which is a proposed set of code changes. It examines the changed code and its surrounding files for bugs, security problems, design issues, and lint errors.