review

review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from mhashim6/kauri. It costs 39 tokens per session (545 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A code-review workflow that compares recent changes with decisions recorded in Kauri, a project decision database. It identifies relevant decisions and reports whether the code follows them, conflicts with them, or makes them outdated.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after implementation, before committing, or during a pull-request review. It can inspect file paths, commit ranges, and current uncommitted changes.
Why use it?
It catches changes that contradict agreed constraints before they are committed or reviewed. It also highlights decisions that may need replacement when the design has intentionally changed.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Part of the kauri plugin — 5 skills, 2 hooks, 1 MCP server shipped together

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/mhashim6/kauri/review
Any agent
npx skills add mhashim6/kauri --skill review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mhashim6/kauri

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Or install kauri, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 5 skills, 2 hooks, 1 MCP server.

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 review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhashim6/kauri/review.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/mhashim6/kauri/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mhashim6/kauri/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhashim6/kauri/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 39 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 545 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
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 $0.00039 $0.00545
Opus 5 $0.00019 $0.00272
Sonnet 5 $0.00008 $0.00109
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00055

Measured 3d ago against content hash f99f7069fd9e, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

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 3d 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.

plugins/claude-code/skills/review/SKILL.md · 53 lines

What it actually says

Review Changes Against Decisions

After implementing changes, verify they are consistent with recorded project decisions. This catches violations before they're committed.

Steps

  1. Identify what changed: If $ARGUMENTS is a file path, read it. If it's a commit range, run git diff $ARGUMENTS. If empty, run git diff to see unstaged changes, or git diff --cached for staged changes.

  2. Find related decisions: For each changed file, query Kauri:

    • kauri_query with --file <path> for directly associated decisions.
    • kauri_query with --text using keywords from the changed code (function names, module names, concepts).
  3. Read the full decisions: Call kauri_show <id> for every match. Don't skip any — a decision might look irrelevant from the title but contain a constraint in the body.

  4. Assess consistency: For each relevant decision, determine:

    • Consistent: The changes respect the decision. Note this.
    • Potential conflict: The changes might violate the decision. Explain specifically what conflicts and why.
    • Decision should be updated: The changes are intentional improvements that make the old decision obsolete.
  5. Report to the user:

    • List each relevant decision and your assessment.
    • For conflicts: recommend either adjusting the code or superseding the decision.
    • For decisions that should be updated: offer to record a superseding decision via /kauri:propose.
    • For decisions now validated by the changes: offer to run kauri_validate still_valid to refresh their timestamp.

When to use this

  • Before git commit on significant changes
  • When reviewing a PR or diff
  • When the user asks "does this look right?" or "anything I'm missing?"
  • After refactoring that touches many files
  • When the post-commit staleness hook reports stale decisions
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. 3d ago First seen · 53 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A f99f7069fd9e

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mhashim6/kauri (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 545 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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.