Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to lsampaioweb/ai-instructions. 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/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/main/.cursor/skills/review-code-against-instructions/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lsampaioweb/ai-instructionsWrote 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/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/review-code-against-instructions)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/review-code-against-instructions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/review-code-against-instructions/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/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/review-code-against-instructions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lsampaioweb/ai-instructions/review-code-against-instructions.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 | $0.00064 | $0.00894 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00447 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00179 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
review-code-against-instructions 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 9d 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 — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Code And Instruction Coverage
- Obey
AGENTS.md(project root). - Prefer architecture guidance from
.cursor/rules/spring-boot-architecture.mdcwhen present. - Read-only audit; edit only user-approved items after explicit approval.
1. Scope & Analysis
- Resolve the target scope from the user-provided input. If missing, confirm a full-repo scan with the user before proceeding. Never invent a narrow scope.
- Identify all applicable rules/overlays for the target scope.
- Establish active cross-references between code files and overlay rules.
2. Resolution Rules
- Bidirectional Audit: Check code against rules/overlays; check rules/overlays against code.
- Code Violations: Flag places where the implementation does not follow the active rules.
- Overlay Gaps: Flag recurring code patterns, missing constraints, or missing governance that should be added.
- Coverage Absence: If no rules/overlays exist for the target scope, infer the minimum enforceable initial set from the code and propose it.
- New File Placement: Place proposed Cursor rules in
.cursor/rules/*.mdc(not.github/instructions/). - Optional Source Evidence: Also read
.github/instructions/*.instructions.mdas Copilot-source evidence when auditing. - Evidence Rule: Base all conclusions on files that actually exist in scope. Do not guess.
- Scanning Rigor: Scan the full target scope. Do not sample.
- Finding Format: For each finding, state the problem briefly and give one minimal remediation action.
- Classification: Distinguish required violations, optional gaps, and ambiguous cases.
- Coverage Gate: Treat missing required overlay coverage as a problem.
- Deduplication Rule: Merge repeated observations that share the same root cause into one finding.
- Compression Rule: Do not list compliant files, retained overlays, or exhaustive inventories unless they are necessary to explain a finding.
- Reference Precision: Include line references when they are available without guesswork.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 93 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 012c0f5731b0
review-code-against-instructions is a skill published in the GitHub repository lsampaioweb/ai-instructions (1 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 894 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
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…