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 mgiovani/cc-arsenal --skill review-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mgiovani/cc-arsenalWrote 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/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-code/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/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-code.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 | $0.00191 | $0.02571 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00076 | $0.01028 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00514 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00257 |
Grade A, and why
review-code 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 — 148 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
One review, adaptive lanes. The six core dimensions and the architecture lane always run. Security, deps, deep-performance and design/motion lanes join when the diff touches their area. Critical and Major findings are then attacked by a verifier before they reach the report.
Analysis only. Never edit code, commit, apply fixes, or run anything that mutates the repo. The report goes to chat. Run gh write commands (reviews, comments) only when the user explicitly asks to post.
Core rules
- Every finding cites a
file:lineyou read, pointing at the offending statement itself, not the block around it. No hypothetical issues, no estimated counts. - Review the diff, not the uncommitted working tree. Findings on changed lines are in-diff; findings on untouched lines of touched files are
preexisting. - Project rules (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md,
.claude/skills/*) are the style standard. A violation is a finding. Personal preference is not. - User context such as "another session is fixing X" is information, not an exclusion, unless the user says to exclude it.
- Strict by default: report every smell and rule violation, Nit included. Nothing is silently passed.
- Every subagent call sets
modelexplicitly: review, research and verify usesonnet, planning usesopus. Never leave it inherited, never usehaiku.
Workflow
Copy this checklist and tick each step. Do not start a step before the previous gate holds.
- [ ] 0. Scope: diff retrieved, file list and hunk ranges known (gate: non-empty diff)
- [ ] 1. Discovery: stack and project rules extracted into a numbered list (gate: list written)
- [ ] 2. Lane selection: lanes chosen with a one-line reason each (gate: printed)
- [ ] 3. Fan-out: all lane agents launched in ONE parallel batch (gate: all findings files written)
- [ ] 4. Consolidate: merged, deduplicated, routed to the right dimension
- [ ] 5. Verify: Critical/Major findings attacked, REJECTED dropped (gate: every survivor has a verdict)
- [ ] 6. Report: written in chat from the template
- [ ] 7. Post: ONLY if the user explicitly asked
What ships with it
9 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.
- evals/evals.json 12 KB
- evals/trigger-eval.json 2.1 KB
- references/agent-prompts.md 24 KB
- references/architecture-patterns.md 8.4 KB
- references/github-review.md 2.9 KB
- references/lanes.md 21 KB
- references/report-template.md 7.4 KB
- references/verification.md 3.0 KB
- scripts/merge_findings.py 8.2 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 · -23 lines · +46 tokens per session b83f37282783
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines 23ce5a7027cf
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines · -17 tokens per session ae1c1be43e8f
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines b5305078a8b3
- 1mo ago First seen · 169 lines · 162 tokens per session scan A a774157c9b5d
review-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository mgiovani/cc-arsenal (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 191 tokens to every session and 2,571 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
testing-anti-patterns
Reviews test code to identify and fix common testing anti-patterns including flaky tests, over-mocking, brittle assertions, test interdependency, and hidden test logic. Flags bad patterns, explains the specific defect, and provides corrected implementations. Use when reviewing test code, debugging intermittent or…
structured-code-review
Performs a structured five-stage code review covering requirements compliance, correctness, code quality, testing, and security/performance. Each stage uses targeted checklists and categorized feedback (Blocker/Major/Minor/Nit) with actionable suggestions and rationale. Use when the user asks for code review, PR…
junie
Delegate tasks or get a second opinion from Junie CLI. Infers mode (delegation vs validation) from prompt context. Detects available models at runtime via the CLI. Use when cross-validating code, plans, or architecture with Junie CLI, or offloading work to it. Do not use for tasks that do not benefit from cross-model…
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
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…
agent-debug-ci
Investigate failed scheduled or nightly GitHub Actions runs on the default branch, determine whether the failure is reproducible and repository-owned, implement the smallest evidence-backed fix, validate it, and open a pull request. Use when a failed nightly CI event starts an agent, or when the standard CI or…