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 nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collectionWrote 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/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/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/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/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 | $0.00038 | $0.00881 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00441 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00176 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00088 |
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 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Purpose
Review changes the way a senior engineer does: correctness first, then security, then performance, then design, then style. Every finding carries a severity, a reason, and a fix.
When to Use
- Reviewing a pull request or a local diff before pushing.
- Auditing a branch before merge to a protected branch.
- Reviewing someone else's code in an unfamiliar area of the codebase.
Capabilities
- Correctness analysis: edge cases, off-by-one, null and error paths, concurrency.
- Security review: injection, authorization gaps, secret exposure, unsafe deserialization.
- Performance review: N+1 queries, unbounded allocations, blocking calls on hot paths.
- Design review: coupling, layering violations, missing abstractions, premature ones.
- Test review: whether the tests would actually fail if the code were wrong.
Inputs
- A diff, PR number, or branch reference.
- The surrounding code, not just the changed lines.
- The intent of the change: linked issue, PR description, or a one-line summary.
Outputs
A review with findings grouped by severity:
- Blocking — Correctness, security, or data-loss defects. Must be fixed before merge.
- Should fix — Design or performance problems that will cost more later than now.
- Consider — Improvements that are genuinely optional.
Each finding states the file and line, what is wrong, why it matters, and a suggested fix.
Workflow
- Understand the intent — Read the PR description and the issue. A change that does something other than what it claims is the first finding.
- Read the diff in context — Open the surrounding functions. Most defects live in the interaction between changed and unchanged code.
- Trace the failure paths — For each new branch: what happens when the input is empty, null, malformed, or hostile? What happens when the network call fails?
- Check the boundaries — Anything crossing a trust boundary (HTTP, queue, file, DB) must be validated on the way in and encoded on the way out.
- Assess the tests — Would the new tests fail if the implementation were subtly wrong? If not, they are coverage, not verification.
- Rank and report — Sort findings by severity. Lead with the ones that block.
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 · 81 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A d044694b4597
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection (26 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 881 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
best-practices
Apply modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities".
resolve-pr-comments
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using reasoning recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to "resolve PR comments", "fix review comments", "address PR…
review-code
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the user asks to "review…
assess-technical-debt
Assess project-wide structural technical debt: complexity hotspots, deprecated API usage, duplication clusters, and architecture rot. Ranks findings by impact and refactor effort into a report at .turbo/technical-debt.md. Use when the user asks to "assess technical debt", "find technical debt", "review technical…
map-codebase
Deep architecture report that fans out parallel inspections across different aspects of the codebase (structure, tech stack, APIs, patterns, data flow, dependencies, testing) and synthesizes findings into a comprehensive document at .turbo/codebase-map.md and .turbo/codebase-map.html. Use when the user asks to "map…
peer-review
Run an independent peer review via Codex. Use when the user asks to "peer review", "peer review my code", "peer review my plan", "get a second opinion", or "independent review".