Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mcwalrus/oppertunity-party. 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/mcwalrus/oppertunity-party/main/.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mcwalrus/oppertunity-partyWrote 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/mcwalrus/oppertunity-party/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mcwalrus/oppertunity-party/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mcwalrus/oppertunity-party/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/mcwalrus/oppertunity-party/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mcwalrus/oppertunity-party/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 | $0.00096 | $0.01536 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00614 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00307 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00154 |
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.
This is a copy
88% identical to code-review — 60 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:
- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / PRD / spec?
Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
The issue tracker should have been provided to you — run /setup-matt-pocock-skills if docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point
Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.
Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside two parallel sub-agents.
2. Identify the spec source
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
- Issue references in the commit messages (
#123,Closes #45, GitLab!67, etc.) — fetch via the workflow indocs/agents/issue-tracker.md. - A path the user passed as an argument.
- A PRD/spec file under
docs/,specs/, or.scratch/matching the branch name or feature. - If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
3. Identify the standards sources
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.
On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (Refactoring, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:
- The repo overrides. A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
- Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.
What ships with it
1 file 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 · 90 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A 6a65cc61114f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mcwalrus/oppertunity-party (0 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 1,536 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to code-review, differing in 60 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Review one pull request for real bugs, regressions, and convention violations. Enumerate candidate issues across the whole diff, verify each against the code, then return structured line-anchored findings and a verdict. Read-only on GitHub; the orchestrator posts the review.
writing-emdash-docs
Write, revise, and review EmDash documentation for technical accuracy, useful structure, house style, and natural prose. Use when working on user documentation, guides, API reference pages, migration or upgrade guides, READMEs, contributor documentation, technical specifications, or release notes in the EmDash…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…
a11y-review
Static analysis pass over JSX/HTML/CSS source for WCAG 2.2 AA failure patterns. Does NOT run axe-core, does NOT measure real contrast, does NOT test runtime behavior — pair with a11y-testing for that. Use when the user asks for an accessibility review, a11y check, WCAG review, "is this accessible?", "does my site meet…
adversarial-reviewer
Run an adversarial review of the current git diff before committing, tuned to the AI First CMS monorepo.
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…