review-accuracy-calibration

review-accuracy-calibration is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills. It costs 64 tokens per session (3,174 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A guide to judging code-review findings by confidence, severity, and available evidence. It focuses on reducing false alarms while still identifying real defects.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to filter review comments, assign severity, score confidence, reduce false positives, and decide whether to post or escalate a finding.
Why use it?
It helps reviewers avoid wasting time on speculative comments and prevents uncertain findings from being treated as confirmed problems. It also supports deciding when a finding should block a pull request.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it to filter review comments, assign severity, score confidence, reduce false positives, and decide whether to post or escalate a finding.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-accuracy-calibration
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.

Any agent
npx skills add mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills --skill review-accuracy-calibration
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

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-accuracy-calibration

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-accuracy-calibration/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-accuracy-calibration)
Your own site
<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.

agentmods 80×15 button for review-accuracy-calibration

Your own site · 80×15
<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>
Per session 64 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 3,174 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
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 5.1 $0.00064 $0.03174
Opus 5 $0.00032 $0.01587
Sonnet 5 $0.00013 $0.00635
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00317

Measured 12d ago against content hash 3b8ce278e9d4, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

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.

skills/review-accuracy-calibration/SKILL.md · 296 lines

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)

Read the full file on GitHub · 296 lines

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. 12d ago First seen · 296 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 3b8ce278e9d4

Subscribe to this mod's changes

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.