Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to managedcode/MCPGateway. 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/MCPGateway/main/.codex/skills/mcaf-code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/managedcode/MCPGatewayWrote 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/mcpgateway/mcaf-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/managedcode/mcpgateway/mcaf-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/managedcode/mcpgateway/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/mcpgateway/mcaf-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/managedcode/mcpgateway/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 | $0.00826 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00330 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00165 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00083 |
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.
This is a copy
97% identical to mcaf-code-review — 21 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 100 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.
- Plan first (mandatory):
- analyze current state
- define target outcome, constraints, and risks
- write a detailed execution plan
- 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 · 100 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 86ec886f3ea2
mcaf-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository managedcode/MCPGateway (5 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 826 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to mcaf-code-review, differing in 21 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
maintain-discatsharp
Review, modify, test, document, or release the DisCatSharp repository. Use for DisCatSharp source changes, API additions and migrations, Discord payload models, serialization, command synchronization, Gateway dispatch, REST behavior, analyzer work, multi-target testing, DocFX generation, release notes, and repository…
address-review
Read PR review comments from GitHub, evaluate, address, and reply.
resharper-clt
Use the free official JetBrains ReSharper Command Line Tools for .NET repositories. USE FOR: jb inspectcode; jb cleanupcode; stronger C# inspections, cleanup profiles, and CI-friendly JetBrains analysis. DO NOT USE FOR: replacing tests with inspection output; ad-hoc formatting-only work when the repo intentionally…
roslynator
Use the open-source free Roslynator analyzer packages and optional CLI for .NET. USE FOR: Roslynator.Analyzers setup; Roslynator CLI checks or cleanup; C# linting, static analysis, and code-fix automation. DO NOT USE FOR: overlapping analyzer packs with no consolidation plan; formatting-only work owned by another…
stylecop-analyzers
Use the open-source free StyleCop.Analyzers package for naming, layout, documentation, and style rules in .NET projects. Use when a repo wants stricter style conventions than the SDK analyzers alone provide. USE FOR: the repo wants StyleCop.Analyzers; naming, layout, or documentation style needs stronger enforcement…
safe-github-push
A workflow for safely pushing Git repositories that contain large assets or binary files to GitHub. It checks repository changes and file sizes before planning commits and pushes.