Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to matteocervelli/llms. 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/matteocervelli/llms/main/.claude/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/matteocervelli/llmsWrote 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/matteocervelli/llms/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/matteocervelli/llms/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/matteocervelli/llms/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/matteocervelli/llms/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/matteocervelli/llms/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 | $0.00072 | $0.00909 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00364 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
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 — 154 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Skill
Purpose
Code review focused on quality, structure, naming, and maintainability. For security reviews, use /security-verify scan.
Quick Start
/code-review <file-path>
Review Categories
1. Code Quality (Critical)
File Organization
- File size <= 500 lines
- Single responsibility
- Clear module structure
Naming
- Self-documenting names
- Verbs for functions, nouns for data
- Consistent naming style (snake_case/camelCase)
- No abbreviations
Type Hints (Python) / Types (TS)
- All function parameters typed
- Return types specified
- No implicit
Any
Docstrings/Comments
- Google-style docstrings on public API
- Comments explain WHY, not WHAT
- No commented-out code
2. Error Handling
- Specific exception types
- No bare
except: - Clear error messages
- Cleanup in finally/with blocks
3. Complexity
- Functions < 50 lines
- Cyclomatic complexity < 10
- Nesting depth < 4 levels
- No deep callback chains
4. Testing Readiness
- Dependencies injectable
- Side effects isolated
- Pure functions where possible
5. Style
- Consistent formatting
- Imports organized
- No unused imports/variables
Review Output
# Code Review: src/module.py
## Quality Score: 8/10
## Critical Issues (Must Fix)
- Line 45: Function `process_data` is 78 lines. Split into smaller functions.
## Important Issues (Should Fix)
- Line 23: Missing type hint on return value
- Line 67: Bare `except:` - specify exception type
## Suggestions
- Line 12: Consider extracting magic number 86400 to constant
## Strengths
- Clear function naming
- Good separation of concerns
Common Issues Checklist
Python
- No mutable default arguments
- Using context managers for resources
- No string concatenation in loops
- Using generators for large datasets
TypeScript
- Strict mode enabled
- No
anytypes - Proper null checks
- No type assertions without reason
What ships with it
2 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 · 154 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A e6d92c66c7fe
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository matteocervelli/llms (25 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 909 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
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"…
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…
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…