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-efficiency-patternsgit 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-efficiency-patterns)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-efficiency-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-efficiency-patterns/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-efficiency-patterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills/review-efficiency-patterns.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 | $0.00047 | $0.02572 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01286 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00514 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00257 |
Grade A, and why
review-efficiency-patterns 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 9d 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 — 233 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Efficiency Patterns
Overview
Review time is finite. This skill teaches how to maximize defect detection per minute by applying risk-based ordering, time-boxing, explicit stopping signals, and session hygiene. Pairs with review-code-quality-process (what to check) and review-accuracy-calibration (how to calibrate findings).
Risk-Based Review Ordering
Start with the highest-risk surface before reading anything else.
| Change Type | Risk Tier | Review Priority | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Auth, tokens, session management | CRITICAL | Review first, always | Defects are exploitable immediately |
| Security validation, input handling | CRITICAL | Review first, always | Injection and bypass bugs live here |
| Database writes, migrations, deletes | HIGH | Review second | Data loss is irreversible |
| External API calls, payment flows | HIGH | Review second | Failures have real-world consequences |
| Public API contracts, response schemas | HIGH | Review second | Breaking changes cascade to consumers |
| Business logic, calculation, pricing | MEDIUM-HIGH | Review third | Subtle errors go unnoticed until production |
| Error handling, retry logic | MEDIUM | Review third | Silent failures degrade reliability over time |
| Internal service calls, shared utilities | MEDIUM | Review third | Coupling and blast radius risk |
| UI rendering, display logic | LOW-MEDIUM | Review fourth | Visible defects are reported quickly |
| Config changes, feature flags | LOW-MEDIUM | Review fourth | Often high blast radius despite small diff |
| Documentation, comments | LOW | Review last or skip | No runtime impact |
| Generated code, vendor files | SKIP | Do not review | Machine-written; review the generator instead |
| Test files (passing CI) | SKIM | Spot-check only | Confirm coverage intent, skip implementation detail |
Within each tier, order by blast radius: how many users or downstream systems are affected if this code is wrong.
Time-Boxing Heuristics
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 233 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A d8159344e60b
review-efficiency-patterns is a skill published in the GitHub repository mickeyyaya/refactoring-skills (6 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 2,572 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
recipe-front-review
Reviews completed frontend implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applies user-approved React corrections.
community-research-insight
Extract structured insight briefs from community research transcripts or notes. Produces pain points, stakeholder needs, opportunity maps, risks, and follow-up questions. Requires human review before publication.
output-eval-error-analysis
Systematically review workflow traces to identify failure modes before building evaluators. Use when starting an eval project, after significant pipeline changes, or when production quality drops.
idea-team
A structured group discussion for exploring a product idea through three roles: researcher, critic, and analogy finder. The roles look for evidence, weaknesses, and useful comparisons.
codex-agent
Use when you want a second-opinion review via Codex CLI, cross-verification after another agent implements changes, debugging help, or alternative implementation proposals. Requires Codex CLI to be installed and authenticated.
project-health-auditor
Comprehensive codebase health analysis. Use when reviewing code quality, identifying technical debt, checking dependencies, or assessing project structure.