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 mhawthorne/gza --skill gza-code-review-interactivegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mhawthorne/gzaWrote 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/mhawthorne/gza/gza-code-review-interactive)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mhawthorne/gza/gza-code-review-interactive"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhawthorne/gza/gza-code-review-interactive.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00042 | $0.03812 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01906 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00762 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00381 |
Grade A, and why
gza-code-review-interactive 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 4d 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 — 215 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Interactive Code Review
Review committed changes on the current feature branch and output a structured review.
Requires being on a non-main branch with commits ahead of main. If not, stop and tell the user: "Switch to a feature branch with commits to review. This skill reviews committed changes on feature branches (git diff main...HEAD)."
Arguments
--pr— Post the review as a PR comment (requires an existing PR on the branch)--apply-followups— After the review, apply all non-blocking follow-ups inline without prompting. Has no effect if the verdict isCHANGES_REQUESTED(blockers exist) or if the review reports no follow-ups. Without this flag, the skill prompts the user interactively before applying.- No arguments — Just output the review locally, no PR interaction. If follow-ups exist, prompt the user once at the end (see Step 6).
Process
Step 1: Verify branch state
- Check current branch:
git branch --show-current- If on
mainormaster, stop and tell the user to switch to a feature branch
- If on
- Check for uncommitted changes:
git status --porcelain- If there are uncommitted changes, warn the user but proceed with reviewing committed changes
- Check if branch has commits ahead of main:
git log main..HEAD --oneline- If no commits ahead, stop and tell the user there's nothing to review
Step 2: Find PR (only if --pr flag is set)
- Look up existing PR:
gh pr view --json number,url,title 2>/dev/null - If no PR exists, stop and tell the user to create one first (do NOT create a PR automatically)
- Capture the PR number and URL
Step 3: Capture review context in the parent session
Capture canonical ask context before spawning the reviewer:
- If the caller already provided a
## Review scope:section, pass it through unchanged, along with any## Original plan context (out of scope except for the review scope):section. - Otherwise, if the caller already provided exactly one canonical ask section (
## Original plan:or## Original request:), pass that section through unchanged. - Otherwise, try to resolve ask context from the branch's linked gza task chain (
uv run gza show <TASK_ID>/uv run gza log <TASK_ID>is preferred once you identify the task for this branch). - If linked ask content exists but is unavailable on this machine, pass an explicit unavailable-content marker section (for example,
## Original plan:followed by(plan task <TASK_ID> exists but content unavailable on this machine - flag as blocker)). - If no retrievable plan or request exists for this branch, pass no ask section and let the reviewer state:
No plan or request provided.
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +7 lines 2f8a39e5b2fe
- 8d ago First seen · 208 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 0d08df134c57
gza-code-review-interactive is a skill published in the GitHub repository mhawthorne/gza (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 3,812 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
verify-change
A change-checking skill that reviews code differences and checks whether related documentation, tests, and records were updated.
verify-module
A module-checking skill that scans a project’s folders, code, and documentation. It expects each module to include a README.md and DESIGN.md, which explain how the module is used and why it was designed that way.
verify-quality
A code-quality checker that measures complexity, size, naming, and common code smells. It reports problems such as duplicated code, unused code, and overly long functions.
criticism-self-criticism
A structured review method for examining completed work, criticism, and repeated mistakes. It focuses on specific evidence, causes, effects, and practical improvements.
planning
ONLY for coordinated multi-artifact work: multiple workflows with dependencies, shared data-table schema/migration across tasks, or the user explicitly asked to review a plan first. Load create-tasks via loadtool before calling it (search "create tasks" if not visible). Do NOT use for new one-off workflows…
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.