Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit/main/.claude/skills/code-review-and-quality/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkitWrote 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/moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit/code-review-and-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit/code-review-and-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit/code-review-and-quality/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/moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit/code-review-and-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit/code-review-and-quality.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 4 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Agent Snooping · line 26 Skill reads from agent configuration directories (.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/). These directories may contain API keys, personal settings, and other credentials that the skill has no legitimate need to access.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that access agent configuration directories (.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/). If configuration values are needed, pass them explicitly as parameters or environment variabl
- high Memory Poisoning · line 188 Skill manipulates agent memory, state, or stored context. Memory corruption can alter personality, override safety rules, or cause unpredictable behavior.Fix: Protect agent memory and state from modification by untrusted content. Use read-only memory for critical instructions and validate all state changes.
- medium Agent Snooping · line 183 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 189 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00036 | $0.00512 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00205 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00102 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-and-quality 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 13d 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.
What it actually says
Code Review And Quality
MTK File Resolution
Resolve MTK skill/reference/script paths per .claude/references/mtk-file-resolution.md unless the router already stated MTK_ROOT=<path> this session; CLAUDE.md, .claude/tech-stack, .claude/rules/, tasks/, docs/, .mtk/ stay project-relative.
Overview
Adversarial review of a PR or diff that did not come through implement (implement Phase 4 reads the reference directly). This skill is read-only except for workflow-artifact recording.
When To Use
- Reviewing a PR, branch, or local diff before merge, outside the implement loop
Workflow
- Get the diff (
gh pr diff <n>orgit diff <base>...HEAD) and the changed-file set; exclude files that were already dirty before the change. - Read
.claude/references/implement-review-lanes.mdand pick lanes from its Outside implement column:compliance-revieweralways;silent-failure-hunterwhen the trigger regex matches;test-reviewerwhen public behavior changed;architecture-revieweron a new slice, boundary, or cross-project call. - Dispatch them per Dispatch rules (inline when the Agent tool is unavailable) following the Review protocol (scripts via
$MTK_ROOT; no workflow artifact here, so skip review-input binding and say the review is unbound), run the Defect-class sweep on every confirmed finding, and apply Lane accounting before aggregating.finding-verifieris implement-only (HIGH/MAX). - Emit the findings table and fenced JSON per
.claude/references/review-finding-schema.md, with the lane roster. Write the push receipt only as the protocol's Receipt step qualifies (its--checkclause is implement-only).
Verification
- Every dispatched lane is accounted for; the verdict is not PASS while any lane abstained or returned nothing
- Findings follow the schema; an empty
findings[]carriesbelow_threshold_rationale
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.
- 13d ago Changed · +4 lines 4718f6e6980b
- 16d ago Changed · -175 lines · +1 tokens per session eb9a8fd80a71
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines d23a1186448f
- 2mo ago First seen · 207 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A ad623c252c84
code-review-and-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit (9 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 512 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…