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 nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profilesWrote 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/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles/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/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles/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 | $0.00058 | $0.00851 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00426 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00085 |
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 8d 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to code-review — 9 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/code-review
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md (
.forgecat/profiles/@forgecat/anthropics_knowledge-work-plugins_engineering/CONNECTORS.md).
Review code changes with a structured lens on security, performance, correctness, and maintainability.
Usage
/code-review <PR URL or file path>
Review the provided code changes: @$1
If no specific file or URL is provided, ask what to review.
How It Works
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CODE REVIEW │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ STANDALONE (always works) │
│ ✓ Paste a diff, PR URL, or point to files │
│ ✓ Security audit (OWASP top 10, injection, auth) │
│ ✓ Performance review (N+1, memory leaks, complexity) │
│ ✓ Correctness (edge cases, error handling, race conditions) │
│ ✓ Style (naming, structure, readability) │
│ ✓ Actionable suggestions with code examples │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ SUPERCHARGED (when you connect your tools) │
│ + Source control: Pull PR diff automatically │
│ + Project tracker: Link findings to tickets │
│ + Knowledge base: Check against team coding standards │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Review Dimensions
Security
- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
- Authentication and authorization flaws
- Secrets or credentials in code
- Insecure deserialization
- Path traversal
- SSRF
Performance
- N+1 queries
- Unnecessary memory allocations
- Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths)
- Missing database indexes
- Unbounded queries or loops
- Resource leaks
Correctness
- Edge cases (empty input, null, overflow)
- Race conditions and concurrency issues
- Error handling and propagation
- Off-by-one errors
- Type safety
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 122 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 8fedb08d3bad
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository nota-america/forgecat-agent-profiles (66 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 851 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to code-review, differing in 9 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…
ln-62-repository-publisher
Commits, pushes, and remotely verifies authorized repository changes. Not for releases, package publication, or announcements.
guardrails-writer
A project-wide set of engineering rules covering default practices, forbidden actions, and changes that require another review. The rules can be created from interviews or by examining an existing repository.
test-reviewer
A review workflow for a test package before release preparation. It checks whether the planned tests cover the requirements, can be run, and have enough evidence and risk tracking.
using-git-worktrees
Creates isolated git worktrees for parallel development. Use when starting feature work needing isolation or working on multiple branches simultaneously. NOT for simple branch switching, bulk branch cleanup (use cleanup-git), or git hook/config setup (use configuring-git-hygiene).