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 notque/vexjoy-agent --skill full-repo-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agentWrote 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/notque/vexjoy-agent/full-repo-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/notque/vexjoy-agent/full-repo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/notque/vexjoy-agent/full-repo-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/notque/vexjoy-agent/full-repo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/notque/vexjoy-agent/full-repo-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00022 | $0.02354 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.01177 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00471 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00235 |
Grade A, and why
full-repo-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 249 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Full-Repo Review : Codebase Health Check
Orchestrates a comprehensive four-wave review against ALL source files in the
repository, not just changed files. Delegates the actual review to the
comprehensive-review pipeline. Produces a prioritized issue backlog instead of
auto-fixes.
When to use: Quarterly health checks, after major refactors, onboarding to
a new codebase, or any time you want a systemic view of codebase quality. This
is expensive (all files through all waves) -- use comprehensive-review for
PR-scoped work.
How it differs from comprehensive-review: This skill changes the SCOPE phase to scan all source files instead of git diff, and changes the output from auto-fix to a prioritized backlog report. The review waves themselves are identical.
Reference Loading Table
| Signal | Load These Files | Why |
|---|---|---|
| writing full-repo-review-report.md | report-template.md |
Report structure and field definitions |
| dispatching Wave 1, Wave 2, or Wave 3 review agents | audit-playbook.md |
Per-category checklists, evidence requirements, severity mapping, reviewer role assignments |
Instructions
Options
- --directory [dir]: Review only a single directory (e.g.,
scripts/) instead of the full repo. Useful for splitting a large repo into manageable chunks. - --skip-precheck: Skip the
score-component.pydeterministic pre-check. Only use if the script is unavailable or you need faster iteration. - --min-severity [level]: Only include findings at or above a severity threshold (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM) in the report. Default: include all.
Phase 1: DISCOVER AND PRE-CHECK
Goal: Identify all source files and run deterministic health checks.
Step 1: Discover source files
Build the complete file list by scanning these directories. Always scan ALL
source files -- never fall back to git diff. The entire point of this skill is
codebase-wide coverage. If a specific --directory was provided, scope the
scan to that directory only.
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 249 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 7077429597b3
full-repo-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository notque/vexjoy-agent (419 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 2,354 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Default code-quality route for broad code review, PR review, maintainability, correctness, and regression-risk checks. Do not use as the primary route for dedicated OWASP/security audits, review-feedback handling, completion verification, AI-code cleanup, or TDD/test-first work.
agent-design-best-practices
Best practices for designing Claude Code agent files (.claude/agents/.md). This skill should be used when writing or reviewing agent markdown files to ensure proper design with focused domains, correct tool access, reusable definitions, and separation of capabilities from lifecycle. Combines Anthropic's official…
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…
agent-cross-review
Structured cross-review protocol between specialized agents. Ensures scope alignment, priority calibration, and domain-aware feedback. Use when one agent reviews another's work, during handoffs, or when validating cross-cutting concerns.
godot-code-review
Use when reviewing GDScript or C# Godot code — checklist of best practices, common anti-patterns, and Godot-specific pitfalls.
clean-code
Code quality: meaningful names, SRP, DRY, small functions, guard clauses, refactoring. Triggers: clean code, naming, code smell, SRP, DRY, long function, god class, dead code.