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 mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills --skill review-accuracy-calibrationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skillsWrote 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/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-accuracy-calibration)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-accuracy-calibration"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-accuracy-calibration/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/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-accuracy-calibration"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-accuracy-calibration.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 | $0.00064 | $0.03174 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.01587 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00635 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00317 |
Grade A, and why
review-accuracy-calibration 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 12d 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 — 296 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Accuracy and Calibration
Overview
The accuracy problem in code review has two faces: over-flagging (false positives that waste reviewer and author time) and under-flagging (missing real defects). AI-assisted review tools generate false positives that waste 2-5 hours per developer per week, and 25% of AI suggestions contain errors. The fix is not reviewing less — it is calibrating more precisely.
This skill provides the meta-layer that makes every other review skill more effective: a confidence model, heuristics to suppress false positives, a severity calibration table, and an escalation decision guide. Load when filtering comments, assigning severity, or deciding whether to block a PR.
Quick Reference — Confidence Levels
| Level | Label | Post? | Severity floor |
|---|---|---|---|
| C4 — Certain | You have evidence: test failure, spec violation, data loss | Yes | HIGH or CRITICAL |
| C3 — High | Strong reasoning: well-known anti-pattern, measurable impact | Yes | MEDIUM or higher |
| C2 — Medium | Plausible concern but depends on context you lack | Conditional | LOW or NIT |
| C1 — Low | Speculative; could be intentional or context-dependent | No (investigate first) | — |
Confidence Scoring Model
Assign a confidence level to every finding before posting it.
C4 — Certain
You have direct evidence the code is wrong:
- A test fails or would fail if run
- The code violates a documented spec, contract, or schema
- Data loss or security exposure is provable (e.g., missing WHERE clause on DELETE, secret in source)
- The behavior contradicts the PR description
Action: Always post. Set severity to HIGH or CRITICAL. No hedge language needed.
// C4 example — provably wrong
DELETE FROM users -- Missing WHERE clause: deletes ALL rows
// Post as CRITICAL. No ambiguity.
C3 — High
Strong reasoning based on established patterns:
- A well-documented anti-pattern (N+1 query, mutable default argument, race condition on shared state)
- Clear performance or reliability impact measurable from the code
- Inconsistency with the existing codebase pattern (all other handlers do X; this one does Y)
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 296 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 3b8ce278e9d4
review-accuracy-calibration is a skill published in the GitHub repository mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills (6 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 3,174 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
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.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…