A code-review method for deciding whether a code change is acceptable based on evidence examined by a reviewer.

It helps review pull requests and patches, split large changes, write severity-labelled comments, set review policies, and investigate defects that escaped review.

It helps reviewers manage attention, avoid treating approval as proof of correctness, and make remaining uncertainty explicit.

code-review — Skill for Claude Code and Codex by magnus919

Install

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.

Any agent

npx skills add magnus919/agent-skills --skill code-review

Clone the repo

git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/magnus919/agent-skills

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Its marketplace also offers this one on its own, as the plugin code-review — /plugin install code-review after adding the marketplace above.

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.

README.md

[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/magnus919/agent-skills/code-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/magnus919/agent-skills/code-review)

Your own site

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/magnus919/agent-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/magnus919/agent-skills/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.

Your own site · 80×15

<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/magnus919/agent-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/magnus919/agent-skills/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>

Per session 196 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.

When invoked 3,458 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.

Model	Per session	Once invoked
Fable 5.1	$0.00196	$0.03458
Opus 5.5	$0.00078	$0.01383
Sonnet 5.5	$0.00039	$0.00692
Haiku 4.5	$0.00020	$0.00346

Measured 2d ago against content hash a4bd6f7a5d5d, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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 2d ago.

The scan reads SKILL.md. This mod also ships 4 executable files (scripts/review_record_check.py, scripts/review_scope.py, scripts/test_review_record_check.py, …), listed below but not scanned — reading those needs a real analyzer, not pattern matching.

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.

code-review/SKILL.md · 287 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 287 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Code Review

Review is a decision about a change, supported by evidence a second person gathered independently. Everything else — the comment count, the approval ritual, the review template — is scaffolding around that decision.

Two facts shape the method in this skill:

Review catches what a reviewer can hold in working memory. Effectiveness falls as changes grow and sessions run long, so scope and attention are the first decisions, not the last.
Most review comments are about evolvability, not defects. That is a fine use of review, but it means "approved" is a statement about the evidence examined, never proof that the change is correct.

The reviewer's job is to say precisely what was examined, what was found, what was decided, and what remains unknown.

When to use this skill

A pull request, patch, or diff needs a verdict.
A change is too large to review in one pass and needs scoping or splitting.
Review comments need triage, severity labels, or rewriting so they are actionable.
A team needs reviewer assignment, review policy, or review-latency norms.
A defect reached production and the question is what review missed.
A model produced candidate review comments that a human must accept or discard.

When not to use this skill

The task is to fix the defect the review found — that is implementation work in the owning engineering skill.
The task is to find the cause of a failure: route to systematic-debugging.
The task is a whole-system security assessment: route to security-audit-methodology.
The task is to design a new system or subsystem securely: route to secure-software-engineering and software-architecture.
The task is architecture review across systems rather than a change: route to software-architecture.
The task is to understand an unfamiliar codebase: route to software-architecture-analysis.

The review contract

Before reading the diff, establish four things. If any is missing, ask for it — this is the cheapest possible review comment.

Read the full file on GitHub · 287 lines

Files

What ships with it

20 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.

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.

2d ago First seen · 287 lines · 196 tokens per session scan A a4bd6f7a5d5d

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository magnus919/agent-skills (164 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 196 tokens to every session and 3,458 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-11-02.

Code review LLM agent-skills agentskills ai-agents automation

cocoreview

CocoReview — structured code review with six-severity findings vocabulary, progressive disclosure architecture, and universal anti-pattern baseline. Invoked via $review [file] [--complexity] [--security] [--architecture] [--language ].

Snowflake-Labs/cocoplus · 57 tokens

sentinel

CocoSentinel — eight-dimension artifact quality gate. Dimension G evidence pre-gate runs first (deterministic, .

Snowflake-Labs/cocoplus · 63 tokens

review

Enter the Review phase of CocoBrew. Aggregates findings from Code Quality Advisor, CocoCupper intelligence, spec compliance check, and decision coverage gate. Produces review.md with decision points. Requires developer approval before $ship can proceed.

Snowflake-Labs/cocoplus · 50 tokens

code-review