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 nicodiansk/turbocharge --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nicodiansk/turbochargeWrote 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/nicodiansk/turbocharge/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nicodiansk/turbocharge/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nicodiansk/turbocharge/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/nicodiansk/turbocharge/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nicodiansk/turbocharge/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 | $0.00033 | $0.00688 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00344 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00069 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Holistic pre-merge review of completed work against the original plan.
Announce: "Using review to assess this work before merge."
The Iron Law
NO MERGE WITHOUT CODE REVIEW
Context
The plan or requirements being reviewed: $ARGUMENTS
Dispatch the code-reviewer agent with this prefix so the subagent sees the navigation index (subagents do not inherit parent history):
@ATLAS.md (navigation index — use Module Map + Key Symbols to locate touched modules)
@CLAUDE.md (conventions, rules)
Omit either reference if the file doesn't exist.
Your Review
-
Get the git diff:
BASE_SHA=$(git merge-base HEAD main 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD develop 2>/dev/null || git merge-base HEAD master 2>/dev/null) git diff $BASE_SHA..HEAD -
Read the plan/requirements referenced above
-
Review for:
- Plan alignment — Does implementation match what was planned?
- Code quality — Clean, maintainable, well-tested?
- Architecture — SOLID, good separation, integrates well?
- Security — No vulnerabilities, input validated, secrets safe?
-
Report:
- Strengths — What was done well
- Issues — Critical / Important / Minor with
file:linereferences - Assessment — Ready to merge? Yes / No / With fixes
After review, offer: "Ready to ship?" → chains to /turbocharge:ship
Red Flags — Rationalizations That Mean You're Doing a Shallow Review
If you catch yourself thinking any of these, STOP — you are about to deliver exactly the kind of review that wastes everyone's time:
| Thought | Why It's Wrong |
|---|---|
| "The code looks reasonable, I'll summarize the changes" | Summarizing is not reviewing. Read every changed line. |
| "I'll focus on the important files and skim the rest" | The bug is always in the file you skimmed |
| "The tests pass, so the logic must be correct" | Tests can pass while testing the wrong thing |
| "This is a minor change, quick review is fine" | Minor changes to core logic cause major production incidents |
| "I've reviewed similar code before, I know the patterns" | This review is about THIS diff, not past patterns |
| "Let me check the main concerns and wrap up" | Checking "main concerns" is a euphemism for a partial review |
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 · 77 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 8303149c96fd
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository nicodiansk/turbocharge (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 688 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
design-is
Audit a design against Dieter Rams' ten "Good design is..." principles, then hand off a /make-plan prompt for one of three outcomes — new design, refine design, or redesign. Use when the user says "audit this design", "design review", "check this UI against Rams", "is this UI good", "critique this design", "design…
babysit
Watch a pull request or review cycle until it is ready to merge. Use when asked to babysit, monitor, or keep checking PR comments, reviews, and CI until all actionable issues are resolved.
code-review
Review code for security, quality, and maintainability with structured feedback.
pr-creator
Create well-structured pull requests with proper descriptions and labels.
weekly-digests
Generate a serial week-by-week narrative digest of a project's full claude-mem timeline. Splits the timeline into per-ISO-week files, then runs one consecutive subagent per week — each receiving the prior week's carry-forward block — to produce one chapter per ISO week of data. Use when asked for "weekly digests"…
version-bump
Automated semantic versioning and release workflow for Claude Code plugins. Handles version increments across package.json, marketplace.json, plugin.json manifests, build verification, git tagging, GitHub releases, and changelog generation. NPM publishing is the final human-required handoff because the maintainer…