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 agentmods add skills/nexus-substrate/nexus-agents/reviewing-codenpx skills add nexus-substrate/nexus-agents --skill reviewing-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nexus-substrate/nexus-agentsWrote 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/nexus-substrate/nexus-agents/reviewing-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nexus-substrate/nexus-agents/reviewing-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nexus-substrate/nexus-agents/reviewing-code.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00093 | $0.02440 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.01220 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00488 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00244 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-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 4d 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 — 207 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Skill
Pre-emit vs post-hoc
This skill is the post-hoc review gate — evaluating someone else's diff after it lands as a PR. The complementary pre-emit gate is self-critique, which the author runs on their own work before submitting:
| Skill | Reviews | When |
|---|---|---|
self-critique |
Your own output | Before you emit anything |
reviewing-code (this) |
Others' code (PRs, commits) | After someone else writes code |
Both use the same five-axis framework below. Both can apply to the same artifact at different lifecycle points — author self-critiques before PR; reviewer applies this skill on the resulting diff.
Five-axis review framework
Evaluate every change across these dimensions. The order matters — correctness gates merge; the rest are quality.
- Correctness — does the code do what the spec says? Are edge cases (null, empty, boundary, error paths) handled? Are the tests actually testing the behavior, not just the implementation?
- Readability — would another engineer understand this without explanation? Names follow project conventions? Control flow straightforward?
- Architecture — does it follow existing canonical patterns (
CLAUDE.md"Canonical Paths") or introduce a new one? Module boundaries respected? No circular deps? Abstraction level appropriate? - Security — input validated at boundaries (per
.rules/untrusted-input.md)? Secrets out of code/logs? Auth/authz where needed? Parameterized queries? See security-checklist. - Performance — N+1 patterns? Unbounded data fetching? Sync I/O in hot paths? Re-render storms? Missing pagination? Don't optimize without evidence — see
performance-optimizationskill.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 207 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A a069250809cb
reviewing-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository nexus-substrate/nexus-agents (18 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 2,440 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
tooluniverse-drug-research
Comprehensive drug profiling — mechanism, primary/secondary targets, drug interactions, clinical-trial status, adverse events (FAERS), pharmacogenomics, and approval history. Use for full drug investigation reports, 'tell me about drug X' queries, and assembling drug profiles for clinicians, researchers, or regulatory…
x-scorecard
OpenSSF Scorecard for assessing open source project security. Check security best practices and compliance. Dependency: This is an x-cmd module. Install x-cmd first (see x-cmd skill for installation options). see x-cmd skill for installation.
memstack-business-gdpr
Use this skill when the user says 'GDPR', 'data protection', 'privacy compliance', 'DPA', 'DSAR', 'data subject request', 'cookie consent', 'privacy audit', 'CCPA', or asks 'do I need GDPR for this repo'. Scans the repository to detect what personal data is collected, classifies sensitivity, determines whether GDPR…
catalyst-center-readonly
Query Cisco Catalyst Center read-only — device inventory, site hierarchy, wireless, assurance health, compliance, software images, events. All 514 read-only API operations reachable through 8 grouped dispatchers. Use when asked what Catalyst Center manages, where a device sits, what its health or compliance state is…
build-audit-logs
Build or review audit trails in TypeScript/JavaScript apps using evlog (pipelines, typed actions, denials, retention, compliance-style reviews). For application code, not for extending the evlog package.
nda-review
Use when the user uploads or pastes a non-disclosure agreement and asks for review, redline, risk assessment, or a recommendation on whether to sign. Identifies missing standard protections, one-sided or unusual provisions, and operational issues; produces a structured report with severity ratings and citations to…