Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to naka-koma/local-llm-mcp. 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/naka-koma/local-llm-mcp/main/.claude/skills/review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/naka-koma/local-llm-mcpWrote 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/naka-koma/local-llm-mcp/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/naka-koma/local-llm-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/naka-koma/local-llm-mcp/review/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/naka-koma/local-llm-mcp/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/naka-koma/local-llm-mcp/review.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 | $0.00008 | $0.00349 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00175 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00070 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 11d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
手順
git diffで現在の差分を確認する（$ARGUMENTSがあればそのブランチ/コミット範囲を対象とする）- 以下の観点でレビューし、指摘事項を一覧で提示する
レビュー観点
正確性
- ロジックの誤り、nullチェック漏れ
ask_local_llmのインターフェース（引数・戻り値の型）が壊れていないか
セキュリティ
- APIキーやエンドポイントURLがハードコードされていないか（環境変数経由になっているか）
requestsのタイムアウト設定が外れていないか
プロジェクト規約
- CLAUDE.mdのコーディング規約に準拠しているか
- 「薄いラッパー」という設計思想から外れていないか（LiteLLM側の機能を再実装していないか）
汎用性
- Flowrite固有の値や前提が紛れ込んでいないか（このリポジトリはどのプロジェクトからも使われる想定）
出力フォーマット
指摘ごとに以下の形式で報告する:
- [重要度: 高/中/低] ファイル名:行番号 — 指摘内容と修正案
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 32 lines · 8 tokens per session scan A 61d07ceb485b
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository naka-koma/local-llm-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 8 tokens to every session and 349 once invoked, about $0.0000 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…