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 agentmods add skills/marcusrbrown/systematic/ce-reviewnpx skills add marcusrbrown/systematic --skill ce-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/marcusrbrown/systematicWrote 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/marcusrbrown/systematic/ce-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/marcusrbrown/systematic/ce-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marcusrbrown/systematic/ce-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00036 | $0.14068 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.07034 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.02814 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.01407 |
Grade A, and why
ce: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 4d 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 — 778 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Reviews code changes using dynamically selected reviewer personas. Spawns parallel sub-agents that return structured JSON, then merges and deduplicates findings into a single report.
When to Use
- Before creating a PR
- After completing a task during iterative implementation
- When feedback is needed on any code changes
- Can be invoked standalone
- Can run as a read-only or autofix review step inside larger workflows
Argument Parsing
Parse $ARGUMENTS for the following optional tokens. Strip each recognized token before interpreting the remainder as the PR number, GitHub URL, or branch name.
| Token | Example | Effect |
|---|---|---|
mode:autofix |
mode:autofix |
Select autofix mode (see Mode Detection below) |
mode:report-only |
mode:report-only |
Select report-only mode |
mode:headless |
mode:headless |
Select headless mode for programmatic callers (see Mode Detection below) |
base:<sha-or-ref> |
base:abc1234 or base:origin/main |
Skip scope detection — use this as the diff base directly |
plan:<path> |
plan:docs/plans/2026-03-25-001-feat-foo-plan.md |
Load this plan for requirements verification |
All tokens are optional. Each one present means one less thing to infer. When absent, fall back to existing behavior for that stage.
Conflicting mode flags: If multiple mode tokens appear in arguments, stop and do not dispatch agents. If mode:headless is one of the conflicting tokens, emit the headless error envelope: Review failed (headless mode). Reason: conflicting mode flags — <mode_a> and <mode_b> cannot be combined. Otherwise emit the generic form: Review failed. Reason: conflicting mode flags — <mode_a> and <mode_b> cannot be combined.
Mode Detection
| Mode | When | Behavior |
|---|---|---|
| Interactive (default) | No mode token present | Review, apply safe_auto fixes automatically, present findings, ask for policy decisions on gated/manual findings, and optionally continue into fix/push/PR next steps |
| Autofix | mode:autofix in arguments |
No user interaction. Review, apply only policy-allowed safe_auto fixes, re-review in bounded rounds, write a run artifact, and emit residual downstream work when needed |
| Report-only | mode:report-only in arguments |
Strictly read-only. Review and report only, then stop with no edits, artifacts, todos, commits, pushes, or PR actions |
| Headless | mode:headless in arguments |
Programmatic mode for skill-to-skill invocation. Apply safe_auto fixes silently (single pass), return all other findings as structured text output, write run artifacts, skip todos, and return "Review complete" signal. No interactive prompts. |
What ships with it
9 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/diff-scope.md 1.8 KB
- references/findings-schema.json 11 KB
- references/persona-catalog.md 5.4 KB
- references/resolve-base.sh 4.2 KB runs code
- references/review-output-template.md 8.8 KB
- references/review-summary-schema.json 17 KB
- references/subagent-template.md 7.4 KB
- references/synthesis-artifact-contract.md 16 KB
- references/validator-template.md 5.6 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 778 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 07b3ee513196
ce:review is a skill published in the GitHub repository marcusrbrown/systematic (24 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 14,068 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
plan-protocol
Guidelines for creating and managing implementation plans with citations.
plan-review
Criteria for reviewing implementation plans against quality standards.
code-review
Comprehensive code review methodology with severity classification and confidence thresholds.
code-philosophy
Internal logic and data flow philosophy (The 5 Laws of Elegant Defense). Understand deeply to ensure code guides data naturally and prevents errors.
frontend-philosophy
Visual & UI philosophy (The 5 Pillars of Intentional UI). Understand deeply to avoid "AI slop" and create distinctive, memorable interfaces.
opencode-ensemble
Use when coordinating multiple coding agents, delegating independent software work, managing OpenCode Ensemble teams, choosing teammate roles or models, reviewing teammate output, or deciding whether parallel execution is appropriate.