web-widgets: Skill for Claude Code

.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.md

code-review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from mendix/web-widgets. It costs 45 tokens per session (3,527 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A pull-request review checklist for a Mendix web-widgets monorepo, a repository containing multiple related packages. It checks changed code against the project's conventions and quality requirements.

In plain words
What is it for?
It is for reviewing GitHub pull requests, checking package changes, reviewing CI results, and assessing React, MobX, Atlas UI, testing, security, and accessibility changes.
Why use it?
It helps reviewers find problems in code patterns, tests, versioning, security, accessibility, and failing CI checks without overlooking repository-specific rules.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one. Also seen: mentions Claude Code; installed under .agents/ (shared by several agents); mentions AGENTS.md.

This is mendix/web-widgets's own configuration. It tells Claude Code and Codex how to work on web-widgets itself, so it is not a mod to install elsewhere. Copy it as a starting point and replace the rules that are about this project. Everything web-widgets configures →

Reuse

Borrowing it

Nothing to install: this file belongs to mendix/web-widgets. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.

Copy the file
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mendix/web-widgets/main/.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.md
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mendix/web-widgets

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for code-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mendix/web-widgets/code-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/mendix/web-widgets/code-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mendix/web-widgets/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mendix/web-widgets/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for code-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mendix/web-widgets/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mendix/web-widgets/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 45 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 3,527 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector warn 7 Sept 2026
SkillSpector: 2 findings, 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 52
    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.
  • medium Excessive Agency · line 53
    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.
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00045 $0.03527
Opus 5.5 $0.00018 $0.01411
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00009 $0.00705
Haiku 4.5 $0.00005 $0.00353

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 9667d18de920, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

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.

.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.md · 334 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 334 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Code Review

Review the PR diff against the standards in this repository. Read AGENTS.md for full repo context.

Before reviewing anything, run:

gh pr diff --name-only   # build the exact list of changed files — only read these
gh pr checks             # surface any failing CI checks before reading code

Only read files that appear in the diff output.

What to check on every PR

PR metadata

  • Title: JIRA format [XX-000]: description or conventional commits (feat:, fix:, etc.)
  • Template adherence: lint/test run locally, new tests added, related PRs linked
  • Multi-package PRs: validate each changed package separately

CI checks

Review the gh pr checks output before reading any files:

  • Lint failing → Medium finding — paste the relevant error lines in the finding
  • Unit tests failing → Medium finding — note the package and failing test file
  • E2E tests failing → Medium finding — note the test name and failure reason
  • All checks passing → add "All CI checks passed ✅" to the summary comment

Changelog (per changed package)

Version bumps happen in a separate dedicated PR — do not require or flag missing semver bumps.

If runtime code, public API, XML schema, or behavior changed:

  • Require CHANGELOG.md entry (Keep a Changelog format)
  • Suggest: pnpm -w changelog

If refactor/docs/tests-only: changelog entry not required — confirm with author.

Mendix-specific

AGENTS.md covers the core rules (canExecute, loading states, lowerCamelCase XML keys). Flag these additional review issues:

  • XML changed but TS props not updated, or widget ID is not unique
  • EditableValue read without checking .status — can render stale/undefined data
  • ActionValue.execute() called without checking .canExecute first

React

Flag these patterns — general React conventions are assumed known:

  • Missing or wrong useEffect/useMemo/useCallback deps; stale closures
  • Async effect sets state without a cleanup guard:
    useEffect(() => {
        let active = true;
        (async () => {
            const data = await fetchData();
            if (active) setState(data);
        })();
        return () => {
            active = false;
        };
    }, [fetchData]);
    
  • Array index used as list key — requires a stable unique key
  • Props spread onto DOM nodes (<div {...props}>) — strips unknown HTML attributes

Read the full file on GitHub · 334 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 334 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 9667d18de920

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mendix/web-widgets (40 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 3,527 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-01.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

assess-quality

Audit a Mendix project against best practices for naming, security, performance, maintainability and architecture, and report a scored result. Use when asked to evaluate project quality, run a pre-go-live health check, or get oriented in an unfamiliar app.

mendixlabs/mxcli · 54 tokens

sublime-detection-engineering

Load when the prompt's first line is Sublime detection proposal . Turns one confirmed malicious email into a tested Sublime MQL detection rule proposal: read what made the message malicious, check what already catches it, author MQL, validate the syntax, prove it matches the source message, backtest it over history…

TracecatHQ/tracecat · 118 tokens

code-review-expert

Expert code review of current git changes with a senior engineer lens. Detects SOLID violations, security risks, and proposes actionable improvements.

dtyq/magic · 32 tokens

autoreview

Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.

openclaw/clawhub · 17 tokens

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"…

umputun/revdiff · 84 tokens

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…

LilMGenius/paperthin · 70 tokens