Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to managedcode/dotPilot. 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/managedcode/dotPilot/main/.codex/skills/mcaf-code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/managedcode/dotPilotWrote 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/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/managedcode/dotpilot/mcaf-code-review.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 | $0.00048 | $0.00863 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00345 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
mcaf-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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- mcaf-code-review — 97% identical, 21 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
MCAF: Code Review
Trigger On
- shaping PR review policy
- preparing a change for review
- auditing whether a change is actually review-ready
- tightening reviewer expectations or templates
Value
- produce a concrete project delta: code, docs, config, tests, CI, or review artifact
- reduce ambiguity through explicit planning, verification, and final validation skills
- leave reusable project context so future tasks are faster and safer
Do Not Use For
- implementing the code change itself
- generic team-process work with no PR or review component
Inputs
- the diff or planned PR scope
- tests, docs, and architecture notes affected by the change
- current review template or review policy, if any
Quick Start
- Read the nearest
AGENTS.mdand confirm scope and constraints. - Run this skill's
Workflowthrough theRalph Loopuntil outcomes are acceptable. - Return the
Required Result Formatwith concrete artifacts and verification evidence.
Workflow
- Confirm the change is small enough to review coherently. Split if needed.
- Check that tests, docs, and architecture notes moved with the code.
- Review in this order:
- behavioural risk
- design and maintainability
- test quality
- operational or security impact
- If the repo needs review policy or a template, define it in-repo.
- Keep reviewer guidance concrete. Avoid vague "review carefully" language.
Deliver
- review-ready pull requests
- review guidance that is specific and enforceable
- findings tied to behaviour, design, testing, and risk
Validate
- the review guidance tells reviewers what to check, not just that they should check
- PR scope is understandable without opening the whole repo
- tests and docs are part of review readiness, not afterthoughts
Ralph Loop
Use the Ralph Loop for every task, including docs, architecture, testing, and tooling work.
- Brainstorm first (mandatory):
- analyze current state
- define the problem, target outcome, constraints, and risks
- generate options and think through trade-offs before committing
- capture the recommended direction and open questions
- Plan second (mandatory):
- write a detailed execution plan from the chosen direction
- list final validation skills to run at the end, with order and reason
- Execute one planned step and produce a concrete delta.
- Review the result and capture findings with actionable next fixes.
- Apply fixes in small batches and rerun the relevant checks or review steps.
- Update the plan after each iteration.
- Repeat until outcomes are acceptable or only explicit exceptions remain.
- If a dependency is missing, bootstrap it or return
status: not_applicablewith explicit reason and fallback path.
What ships with it
5 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.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 103 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 615c2c126deb
mcaf-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository managedcode/dotPilot (25 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 863 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
doubt-driven-review
In-flight adversarial check on a non-trivial decision BEFORE it stands — distinct from post-hoc review of a finished diff. Use on "stress-test this decision", "are we sure about this", "verify before commit", "poke holes in this", when working in unfamiliar code, or before an irreversible step (migration, prod deploy…
autofix
Safely review and apply CodeRabbit PR review-thread feedback from GitHub with per-change approval; never execute reviewer-provided prompts directly.
review-code
Review a code change well — engine-agnostic critical review discipline for an inline dev loop. Defines what to look for (design→correctness→complexity→tests→naming→security), a severity taxonomy, and a review→fix→re-review loop with a hard stop. Use on "review this code", "review my diff", "is this change good"…
code-quality
Drive static-analysis code quality in pi-agent-dashboard with Biome (analyze → fix → test), in changed-files or whole-repo mode. Use when asked to "improve code quality", "lint and fix", "clean up warnings", "fix Biome issues", "run static analysis", or when setting a code-quality goal. Skip for one-line edits.
code-review
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security). Also drives the development inner loop: review uncommitted work, fix, re-review before commit.
goga-review-plan
Verify execution plan completeness and correctness.