Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to MartinKuhne/devstack. 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/MartinKuhne/devstack/main/.opencode/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MartinKuhne/devstackWrote 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/martinkuhne/devstack/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/martinkuhne/devstack/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/martinkuhne/devstack/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/martinkuhne/devstack/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/martinkuhne/devstack/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 | $0.00017 | $0.01065 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00426 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00213 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 2mo 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.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
curl -X POST "{GITEA_URL}/api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr_number}/reviews" \ How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 188 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
What I do
I perform comprehensive code reviews with focus on:
- Code quality and maintainability
- Security vulnerabilities
- Performance issues
- Best practices adherence
- Test coverage
- Documentation completeness
Review Checklist
1. Correctness
- Does the code do what the PR claims?
- Are edge cases handled?
- Are there potential bugs?
- Are error conditions properly handled?
2. Security
- Input validation present?
- SQL injection prevention?
- XSS prevention?
- Authentication/authorization correct?
- Secrets not exposed in code?
- Proper error messages (no info leakage)?
3. Performance
- N+1 query issues?
- Unnecessary iterations?
- Large data in memory?
- Caching opportunities?
4. Code Style
- Follows project conventions?
- Naming conventions consistent?
- Code duplication minimized?
- Functions single-purpose?
5. Testing
- Unit tests for new logic?
- Integration tests for flows?
- Edge cases covered?
- Test readability?
6. Documentation
- Comments for complex logic?
- API documentation updated?
- README updated if needed?
- Breaking changes documented?
Review Comment Format
Use structured comments for clarity:
For Issues
[Issue]: Brief description
[Severity]: High/Medium/Low
[Suggestion]: Suggested fix or approach
Example:
[Issue]: SQL query vulnerable to injection
[Severity]: High
[Suggestion]: Use parameterized query:
db.query("SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?", [userId])
For Suggestions
[Suggestion]: Improvement idea
[Benefit]: What this improves
[Effort]: Low/Medium/High
For Praise
[Nit]: Minor style preference (optional to address)
[Good]: Specific positive observation
Review Workflow
- Understand context - Read PR description and linked issues
- Check scope - Ensure changes match stated goals
- Review iteratively - Top-down: architecture, logic, style
- Test locally - Pull and verify functionality
- Provide feedback - Clear, actionable, constructive
- Follow up - Verify fixes addressed concerns
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 188 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A cd4a003abe9a
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository MartinKuhne/devstack (2 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,065 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (makes network calls). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
code-review compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| code-reviewMartinKuhne/devstack | Skill | 2 | 5d ago | MIT | A | 17 | OpenCode |
| autoreviewopenclaw/clawhub | Skill | 9.5k | yesterday | MIT | A | 17 | Claude Code, Codex |
| agent-teams-simplify-and-hardenLeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills | Skill | 2.2k | 6d ago | MIT | A | 115 | Claude Code, Codex |
| omh-code-reviewrlaope/oh-my-hermes | Skill | 5.2k | yesterday | MIT | A | 48 | Claude Code, Codex |
| revdiff-planumputun/revdiff | Skill | 945 | yesterday | MIT | A | 84 | Claude Code |
| explore-unknownsdzhng/skills | Skill | 1.4k | 2d ago | MIT | A | 162 | Claude Code, Codex |
| re0-mergeLilMGenius/paperthin | Skill | 1.4k | 4d ago | MIT | A | 70 | Claude Code |