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 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/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/marcusrbrown/systematic/ce-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marcusrbrown/systematic/ce-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 661 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00036 | $0.16035 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.06414 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.03207 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.01604 |
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 22d 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 — 799 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
13 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 14 KB
- references/persona-catalog.md 9.0 KB
- references/pipeline-invocation.md 16 KB
- references/resolve-base.sh 4.2 KB runs code
- references/review-output-template.md 9.8 KB
- references/review-pipeline-schema.json 14 KB
- references/review-summary-schema.json 17 KB
- references/subagent-template.md 8.2 KB
- references/synthesis-artifact-contract.md 21 KB
- references/validator-template.md 5.6 KB
- scripts/ensure-ignore.mjs 21 KB runs code
- scripts/validate-review.mjs 311 KB runs code
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.
- 22d ago Changed 9edf22ccc4b6
- 1mo ago Changed · -29 lines 1b6b31c16039
- 1mo ago Changed · +36 lines 0bb543aa75c4
- 1mo ago Changed · +14 lines ccb8878613d2
- 1mo 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 today), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 16,035 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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.
pr
Draft a PR body from OMC's paper trail — the smallest visual that proves the change, evidence consumed from the verify protocol (never re-collected), reversibility from the ADR test on the diff, glossary language throughout.
plannotator
Reference for using Plannotator (its plannotator tool when you have one, otherwise the CLI): plan review, code review, annotating files, URLs, folders, and running local apps, annotating the last assistant message, browsing archived plan decisions, exporting or sharing Guided Reviews, and the Plannotator Inbox…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.