Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to n24q02m/better-code-review-graph. 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/n24q02m/better-code-review-graph/main/.agents/skills/review-delta/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/n24q02m/better-code-review-graphWrote 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/n24q02m/better-code-review-graph/review-delta)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/n24q02m/better-code-review-graph/review-delta"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/n24q02m/better-code-review-graph/review-delta/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/n24q02m/better-code-review-graph/review-delta"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/n24q02m/better-code-review-graph/review-delta.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 | $0.00024 | $0.00458 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00229 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00092 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00046 |
Grade A, and why
review-delta 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 10d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to review-delta — 8 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Review Delta
Perform a focused, token-efficient code review of only the changed code and its blast radius.
Token optimization: Before starting, call help(topic="graph") for the full actions reference. Use ONLY changed nodes + 2-hop neighbors in context.
Steps
-
Ensure the graph is current by calling
graph(action="update"). -
Get review context by calling
review(). This returns:- Changed files (auto-detected from git diff)
- Impacted nodes and files (blast radius)
- Source code snippets for changed areas
- Review guidance (test coverage gaps, wide impact warnings, inheritance concerns)
-
Analyze the blast radius by reviewing the
impacted_nodesandimpacted_filesin the context. Focus on:- Functions whose callers changed (may need signature/behavior verification)
- Classes with inheritance changes (Liskov substitution concerns)
- Files with many dependents (high-risk changes)
-
Perform the review using the context. For each changed file:
- Review the source snippet for correctness, style, and potential bugs
- Check if impacted callers/dependents need updates
- Verify test coverage using
query(action="query", pattern="tests_for", target=<function_name>) - Flag any untested changed functions
-
Report findings in a structured format:
- Summary: One-line overview of the changes
- Risk level: Low / Medium / High (based on blast radius)
- Issues found: Bugs, style issues, missing tests
- Blast radius: List of impacted files/functions
- Recommendations: Actionable suggestions
Advantages Over Full-Repo Review
- Only sends changed + impacted code to the model (5-10x fewer tokens)
- Automatically identifies blast radius without manual file searching
- Provides structural context (who calls what, inheritance chains)
- Flags untested functions automatically
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 47 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A bd6da73f9015
review-delta is a skill published in the GitHub repository n24q02m/better-code-review-graph (67 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 458 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to review-delta, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
the-judge
Evidence-first pull request judge that reviews a PR and posts one consolidated GitHub review with inline comments via the gh CLI. Runs the repo's own deterministic checks first, researches current official docs before any claim about external libraries or APIs, then reviews correctness, security, structural quality…
best-practices
Apply modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities". Do NOT use for accessibility (use web-accessibility), SEO (use seo), performance (use…
gh-address-comments
Address review and issue comments on the open GitHub PR for the current branch using gh CLI. Use when user says "address PR comments", "fix review feedback", "respond to PR review", or "handle PR comments". Verifies gh auth first and prompts to authenticate if not logged in. Do NOT use for creating PRs, CI debugging…
codeck
Route explicit requests from a host coding agent to one or more locally configured AI executors through Codeck, attach Markdown or other project files, moderate cross-model consultation, expose disagreements, and synthesize traceable results. Use when the user explicitly names Codeck or asks to consult, compare, or…
review-work
Post-implementation review orchestrator. Launches 5 parallel background sub-agents: Oracle (goal/constraint verification), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (hands-on QA execution), unspecified-high (context mining from GitHub/git/Slack/Notion). All must pass for review to pass. MUST USE after…
code-review-excellence
Transform code reviews from gatekeeping to knowledge sharing through constructive feedback, systematic analysis, and collaborative improvement.