lfx-mcp: Skill for Claude Code

.github/skills/mcp-code-review/SKILL.md

mcp-code-review is a skill for Claude Code from linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp. It costs 84 tokens per session (1,495 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A code-review method for pull requests to the LFX MCP Server, a Go server that exposes LFX capabilities to AI assistants. It evaluates changed code against the repository's documented standards.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it on any code-changing pull request to inspect the diff, relevant surrounding code, project documentation, and expected tests, then report specific findings.
Why use it?
It provides a consistent way to find real correctness, error-handling, testing, performance, readability, and security problems without auditing unrelated code.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter. Also seen: mentions CLAUDE.md; mentions AGENTS.md.

This is linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp's own configuration. It tells Claude Code how to work on lfx-mcp itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything lfx-mcp configures →

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/main/.github/skills/mcp-code-review/SKILL.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for mcp-code-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/mcp-code-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/mcp-code-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/mcp-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/mcp-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for mcp-code-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/mcp-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp/mcp-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 84 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,495 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00084 $0.01495
Opus 5.5 $0.00034 $0.00598
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00017 $0.00299
Haiku 4.5 $0.00008 $0.00150

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 7f50c0f35d65, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

mcp-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.

.github/skills/mcp-code-review/SKILL.md · 119 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

LFX MCP Server Code Review

Judge the implementation the way a senior reviewer the team trusts would: thorough yet pragmatic, catching real issues while respecting the author's time. Review the changed code, not the whole repo, and read enough surrounding code to judge each hunk in its real context.

The house standards

The repo defines its own standards; hold the diff to them, and name the documented source in any standards finding. They live in the repo's documentation (CLAUDE.md / the root AGENTS.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, and what they point to): code layout, the error model, how tools are registered and described, test expectations, license headers. Read the parts relevant to the diff before judging, every run, because the standards belong to the repo and move with it.

Enforcement runs in both directions: code that violates a documented standard is a finding, and a documented standard the code has visibly outgrown is a finding against the docs. If a documented convention is wrong for this specific change, say so explicitly and explain the trade, rather than silently waiving or silently enforcing it.

The standing distillate

These are the repo's most load-bearing, CI-enforced conventions, distilled so no review misses them. They summarize the docs, never replace them — when the docs and this list drift, the docs (and the code) win, and the drift is a finding against this skill.

  • License header: every tracked source/config file (Go, YAML, shell, Makefile, etc.) begins with the two-line LF/MIT header. The wording varies by file type in this repo — Go files use // Copyright The Linux Foundation and contributors. while YAML, shell, and Makefile use # Copyright The Linux Foundation and each contributor to LFX. — both followed by SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT in the same comment syntax. Match the surrounding convention for the file type; missing headers are the #1 cause of CI failure (license-header-check.yml).
  • Package doc comments: every non-test .go file needs // Package <name> ... immediately above package (revive package-comments via MegaLinter; _test.go exempt). .mega-linter.yml is the single source of truth for what else is enforced.
  • Layout: entry point, config, and tool registration in cmd/lfx-mcp-server/main.go; one file per tool/domain in internal/tools/; scope constants in internal/tools/scopes.go; JWT and API-key verification in internal/auth/; the LFX V2 client (token exchange, slug resolver, access checks) in internal/lfxv2/; the generic downstream HTTP client in internal/serviceapi/.
  • The tool pattern: args struct with json + jsonschema tags → Register<ToolName> calling mcp.AddTool → handle<ToolName> → registration in newServer() gated on canRead/canManage → name added to defaultTools. A Register call without the defaultTools entry means the tool silently won't run — a classic miss. Read tools always set ReadOnlyHint: true; write tools explicitly set DestructiveHint.
  • Conventions: schemas are generated from struct tags (no manual schema files); the package-level schemaCache is shared across per-request server instances — never duplicated; slog for logging with const errKey = "error" for structured error keys; scope enforcement is inline in newServer(), never wrapper functions.

Read the full file on GitHub · 119 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 119 lines · 84 tokens per session scan A 7f50c0f35d65

Subscribe to this mod's changes

mcp-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository linuxfoundation/lfx-mcp (21 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 84 tokens to every session and 1,495 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-26.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

test-review

You are an expert DataHub test reviewer. Your role is to evaluate pytest smoke tests against established testing standards, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.

datahub-project/datahub · 0 tokens

grade-tests

Grade curated individual tests for readiness, A-F quality and improvements. ALWAYS USE FOR: grade tests, review only a named test, per-test readiness or quality bands for supplied methods, bodies, file spans or bounded PR diffs, including existing tests. Return Pass/Failed/Uncertain/Not applicable; unresolved/empty…

dotnet/skills · 119 tokens

go-testing

Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.

Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai · 26 tokens

brooks-test

Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…

hyhmrright/brooks-lint · 161 tokens

dart-mechanical-refactor

DART Mechanical Refactor: perform a behavior-preserving mechanical refactor.

dartsim/dart · 20 tokens

aqe-review-quality

Review Agentic QE changes and issue an evidence-backed quality verdict. Use for code review, regression-risk assessment, release readiness, quality-gate evaluation, security/performance/testability review, or checking whether a change has sufficient verification. Do not use when the user primarily asks to implement a…

proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe · 64 tokens