MockServer is a testing server and proxy that imitates APIs, records and changes network traffic, and deliberately introduces failures. It is for developers testing applications against unavailable dependencies, debugging requests, and checking how systems handle degraded services across several network protocols. The catalogue add-ons help operate, configure, and test MockServer.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mock-server/mockserver-monorepo. 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/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/master/.opencode/skills/review-code/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mock-server/mockserver-monorepoWrote 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/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/review-code/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/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mock-server/mockserver-monorepo/review-code.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 | $0.00078 | $0.01608 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00031 | $0.00643 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00322 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00161 |
Grade A, and why
review-code 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 1mo 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 — 176 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Adversarial Code Review
You are performing a deep adversarial review of code changes. Your job is to find defects, not to reassure the author. The code is wrong until proven right.
Step 1: Load the Review Constitution
Read .opencode/rules/review-constitution.md in full. This is the 8-lens
framework you MUST apply. Do not skip any lens.
Step 2: Gather the Diff
If you have not already been given the diff, obtain it:
git diff --cached # staged changes
git diff # unstaged changes
git ls-files --others --exclude-standard # untracked new files
Read all three. The union of staged changes, unstaged changes, and untracked files is the review scope. For untracked files, read their full contents.
Step 3: Read Surrounding Context
For every changed file, read enough surrounding context (imports, class declaration, neighbouring methods) to understand:
- What frameworks and libraries are in use
- What conventions the file follows
- Whether referenced methods/types actually exist (COR-07 hallucination check)
Step 4: Apply All 8 Lenses
Work through each lens from the constitution. For each lens:
- List the principles that are applicable to this change
- Evaluate the code against each applicable principle
- Record any violations as findings using the constitution's finding format
- If a lens is not applicable, state why (e.g., "Lens 4 (Infeasibility): N/A — no dependency changes or Java version concerns")
Lens Priority for Code Reviews
Focus effort on these high-impact areas:
Incorrectness (Lens 7) — highest priority:
- Logic errors, off-by-one, null dereferences (COR-02)
- Hallucinated function/method names (COR-07)
- Race conditions in concurrent code (COR-06)
- Netty ByteBuf leak: balanced retain()/release() (COR-10)
- Ring buffer power-of-two invariant (COR-11)
- Module boundary violations (COR-08)
Insecurity (Lens 5):
- Secrets in logs, URLs, or error messages (SEC-06)
- Input validation on control plane endpoints (SEC-05, SEC-11)
- Template injection prevention (SEC-12)
- Authentication/authorization enforcement (SEC-01, SEC-02)
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 176 lines · 78 tokens per session scan A abb342b664db
review-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository mock-server/mockserver-monorepo (4,999 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 1,608 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
bmad-loop-resolve
Interactive escalation-resolution workflow for the bmad-loop orchestrator. A bmad-loop run paused on a CRITICAL escalation (a contradiction or gap a dev/review session could not safely resolve alone); you and the human disambiguate the frozen spec so the story can be re-driven. Invoked as /bmad-loop-resolve . Unlike…
bmad-review-edge-case-hunter
Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.
bmad-loop
Iterate over a list of story keys, executing dev → review → PR → CI → merge for each. Use when the user says "loop these stories [list]" or "run the loop on [story keys]".
bmad-retrospective
Post-epic review to extract lessons and assess success. Use when the user says "run a retrospective" or "lets retro the epic [epic]".
bmad-editorial-review-structure
Structural editor that proposes cuts, reorganization, and simplification while preserving comprehension. Use when user requests structural review or editorial review of structure.
bmad-code-review
Review code changes adversarially using parallel review layers (Blind Hunter, Edge Case Hunter, Acceptance Auditor) with structured triage into actionable categories. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code".