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 NikiforovAll/claude-code-rules --skill team-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NikiforovAll/claude-code-rulesWrote 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/nikiforovall/claude-code-rules/team-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nikiforovall/claude-code-rules/team-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nikiforovall/claude-code-rules/team-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00065 | $0.00953 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00477 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
team-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 7d 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Team Review: Code Review with Persistent Team Members
Review all changed files for reuse, quality, and efficiency using a team of named reviewers that persist for follow-up questions.
Phase 1: Identify Changes
Run git diff (or git diff HEAD if there are staged changes) to see what changed. If there are no git changes, review the most recently modified files that the user mentioned or that you edited earlier in this conversation.
Store the full diff text — you will pass it to each reviewer.
Phase 2: Create Review Team and Spawn Reviewers
Create a team (or reuse an existing one) and spawn three named team members concurrently using the Agent tool. Each member gets the full diff as context.
Use run_in_background: true for all three so they run in parallel. Give each a descriptive name parameter.
Member 1: reuse-reviewer
Prompt: You are a code reuse reviewer. Here is the diff to review:
<paste full diff>
For each change:
- Search for existing utilities and helpers that could replace newly written code. Look for similar patterns elsewhere in the codebase.
- Flag any new function that duplicates existing functionality. Suggest the existing function to use instead.
- Flag any inline logic that could use an existing utility — hand-rolled string manipulation, manual path handling, custom environment checks, ad-hoc type guards.
Report findings as a bulleted list. If the code is clean, say so.
Member 2: quality-reviewer
Prompt: You are a code quality reviewer. Here is the diff to review:
<paste full diff>
Review for:
- Redundant state: state that duplicates existing state, cached values that could be derived
- Parameter sprawl: adding new parameters instead of generalizing
- Copy-paste with slight variation: near-duplicate code blocks
- Leaky abstractions: exposing internal details that should be encapsulated
- Stringly-typed code: using raw strings where constants or enums exist
- Unnecessary nesting: wrapper elements that add no value
- Unnecessary comments: comments explaining WHAT — delete; keep only non-obvious WHY
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 88 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A af987966e256
team-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository NikiforovAll/claude-code-rules (141 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 65 tokens to every session and 953 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
review-pr
Review a Pull Request in one of two postures: an expository "tour guide" that walks through changes in logical order, or an adversarial audit that assumes the change is wrong until proven safe and hunts for the failure mode. Triggers: "review PR #123", "adversarial review", "walk me through this PR", "PR tour guide"…
intended-vs-implemented
The method for finding the gap between what a system is supposed to do and what the code actually does — the class of bug generic scanners miss because they have no model of intent. Defines what counts as documented intent, what counts as implementation evidence, which mismatches matter, and how to avoid hand-wavy…
improve-code-quality
Guided journey from a working-but-untested vibe-coded prototype to a production-ready product with tests, clean structure, a business-rules boundary, and resilience at scale. Orchestrates nine skills phase by phase - working-with-legacy-code, clean-code, refactoring-patterns, software-design-philosophy…
refactoring-patterns
Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", "technical debt", "move method", "inline variable", "decompose conditional", or "clean up this messy code". Also trigger when…
code-reviewer
Code review knowledge base: quality, security (OWASP Top 10), error-handling, performance, and test-coverage checklists with severity-ranked output format. Use when reviewing code changes, PRs, or before commits. Loaded automatically by the code-reviewer agent.
doubt-driven
Use when a non-trivial decision sits under uncertainty and correctness matters more than speed. Not for patch review: use review. Not for plan attacks: use load-bearing-assumption-test.