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 mhylle/claude-skills-collection --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mhylle/claude-skills-collectionWrote 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/mhylle/claude-skills-collection/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mhylle/claude-skills-collection/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhylle/claude-skills-collection/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/mhylle/claude-skills-collection/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mhylle/claude-skills-collection/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00071 | $0.03135 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.01568 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00627 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00314 |
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 10d 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 — 447 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Systematic code review skill that validates implementation quality across six dimensions: service delegation, framework standards, ADR compliance, plan synchronization, coding standards, and general code quality.
Design Philosophy
This skill acts as a quality gate between implementation phases. It ensures code meets established standards before proceeding, catching issues early when they're cheapest to fix.
When to Use This Skill
Automatically invoked by implement-plan:
- After each phase completes its functional verification
- Before marking a phase as complete
- Before proceeding to the next phase
Manually invoked when:
- Reviewing a PR or set of changes
- Validating code before committing
- Checking implementation against architectural decisions
Review Dimensions
1. Service Delegation & Single Responsibility
Verify that implementation follows proper separation of concerns:
| Check | What to Look For |
|---|---|
| Controller thin | Controllers only handle HTTP concerns, delegate to services |
| Service focused | Each service has one clear responsibility |
| No god objects | No classes/modules doing too many things |
| Dependency direction | Dependencies flow inward (controllers → services → repositories) |
| No business logic in wrong layer | Controllers don't contain business rules, repositories don't transform data |
2. Framework Standards Compliance
Verify code follows the project's established patterns:
| Check | What to Verify |
|---|---|
| Naming conventions | Files, classes, methods follow project conventions |
| Module structure | New code follows existing module organization |
| Error handling | Uses project's error handling patterns |
| Logging | Follows established logging conventions |
| Configuration | Uses project's config management approach |
| Testing patterns | Tests follow existing test structure and naming |
3. ADR Compliance
Verify architectural decisions are followed and documented:
What ships with it
5 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.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 447 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 4a3b61834b69
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mhylle/claude-skills-collection (18 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 3,135 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.