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 New1Direction/korgex --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/New1Direction/korgexWrote 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/new1direction/korgex/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/new1direction/korgex/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/new1direction/korgex/code-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/new1direction/korgex/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/new1direction/korgex/code-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 | $0.00018 | $0.00287 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00115 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00057 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00029 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 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.
What it actually says
Review the DIFF, but read enough surrounding code to judge it in context.
- Get the diff.
git diff(or the relevant range). Read each hunk with its surrounding function and callers — a change is only correct in context. - Check, in priority order:
- Correctness: does it do what it claims? Off-by-one, null/empty, error paths.
- Edge cases: boundaries, concurrency, large/empty inputs, failure modes.
- Security: injection (command/SQL/XSS), path traversal, secrets in code, unvalidated input crossing a trust boundary.
- Tests: is the new behaviour covered? Would a test have caught a regression?
- Clarity: names, dead code, needless complexity, comments that explain WHY.
- Verify, don't assume. If unsure a branch is reachable or a value can be null, trace it or write a quick check rather than guessing.
- Report findings ranked by severity (blocker → nit), each with file:line and a concrete suggested fix. Call out what's GOOD too. Don't invent issues to seem thorough.
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 · 23 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A 67e262218868
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository New1Direction/korgex (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 287 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
vibe-security
A defensive security review workflow for code, dependencies, and application configuration. It checks for vulnerabilities such as unsafe input handling, unauthorized access, exposed sensitive data, and known problems in installed packages.
vibe-review
Use this skill to perform code reviews, checking for quality, security, and standard compliance.
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
review
Diff-scoped correctness review that reads the codebase around the change — callers, contracts, and invariants — and returns line-anchored findings ranked by severity with confidence, then a merge-risk verdict. Use for reviewing a PR, diff, or named change set. Not for style review, approvals-as-rubber-stamp, or…
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, code quality, and efficiency, then directly apply straightforward cleanup improvements. Use when the user wants a post-implementation cleanup pass, pre-PR polish, or asks to simplify/refine recent changes. Invoke with /simplify or /simplify .
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…