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.
npx skills add manhvann/codexkit --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/manhvann/codexkitWrote 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/manhvann/codexkit/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/manhvann/codexkit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/manhvann/codexkit/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/manhvann/codexkit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/manhvann/codexkit/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00046 | $0.01302 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00521 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00260 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00130 |
Grade A, and why
ck: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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 148 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Guide proper code review practices emphasizing technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses.
Default (No Arguments)
If invoked with context (recent changes/PR), proceed with review. If invoked WITHOUT arguments, ask the user to choose available review operations:
| Operation | Description |
|---|---|
(default) |
Review recent changes/PR |
codebase |
Full codebase scan & analysis |
codebase parallel |
Parallel multi-reviewer audit |
Present options with header "Review Operation", question "What would you like to do?".
Core Principle
YAGNI, KISS, DRY always. Technical correctness over social comfort. Be honest, be brutal, straight to the point, and be concise.
Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.
Practices
| Practice | When | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Receiving feedback | Unclear feedback, external reviewers, needs prioritization | references/code-review-reception.md |
| Requesting review | After tasks, before merge, stuck on problem | references/requesting-code-review.md |
| Verification gates | Before any completion claim, commit, PR | references/verification-before-completion.md |
| Edge case scouting | After implementation, before review | references/edge-case-scouting.md |
| Task-managed reviews | Multi-file features (3+ files), parallel reviewers, fix cycles | references/task-management-reviews.md |
Quick Decision Tree
SITUATION?
│
├─ Received feedback → STOP if unclear, verify if external, implement if human partner
├─ Completed work → Scout edge cases → Request code_reviewer subagent
├─ Multi-file feature (3+ files) → Create review pipeline tasks (scout→review→fix→verify)
└─ About to claim status → RUN verification command FIRST
Receiving Feedback
Pattern: READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT
Rules:
- No performative agreement: "You're absolutely right!", "Great point!"
- No implementation before verification
- Restate, ask questions, push back with reasoning, or just work
- YAGNI check: grep for usage before implementing "proper" features
What ships with it
7 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.
- references/code-review-reception.md 3.0 KB
- references/codebase-scan-workflow.md 1.1 KB
- references/edge-case-scouting.md 2.9 KB
- references/parallel-review-workflow.md 1.9 KB
- references/requesting-code-review.md 3.0 KB
- references/task-management-reviews.md 4.8 KB
- references/verification-before-completion.md 4.1 KB
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 · 148 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A a4f32efd519d
ck:code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository manhvann/codexkit (89 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,302 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…