Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agentnpx agentmods add skills/notque/vexjoy-agent/reviewWrote 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/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/notque/vexjoy-agent/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/notque/vexjoy-agent/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/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/notque/vexjoy-agent/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 | $0.00023 | $0.01965 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00786 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00393 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00197 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 220 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review
Three modes. Pick one by request shape, default to systematic.
| Request matches | Mode |
|---|---|
| Review a file, diff, or PR | Systematic (default) |
| "parallel review", "multi-reviewer", "3-reviewer" | Parallel |
| "full repo review", "codebase audit", "repo health", review ALL files | Full-repo |
Deep References
| Signal | Load | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewing Go code | references/go-review-patterns.md |
Exports, concurrency, resources, metrics, tests |
| Dispatching Architecture reviewer in parallel mode | references/architecture-smell-baseline.md |
12 Fowler smells with language counter-examples and severity cap |
| Writing full-repo report | references/report-template.md |
Report structure and field definitions |
| Dispatching full-repo wave agents | references/audit-playbook.md |
8-category checklists with evidence requirements |
| Disproving findings before report (Systematic Phase 3.5, Parallel Step 3) | references/disprove-pass.md |
Refuter dispatch, drop rule, fail-open cases, model choice |
| Receiving review feedback | references/receiving-feedback.md |
Feedback-handling patterns |
Severity Classification
Shared across all modes. When in doubt, classify UP.
| Level | Scope | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| BLOCKING | Security, correctness, reliability | Auth bypass, race condition, resource leak, logic error, test failure |
| SHOULD FIX | Material quality, patterns, tests | Missing tests, unhelpful errors, pattern violations, N+1 in hot paths |
| SUGGESTION | Optional, stylistic | Naming preferences, comments, micro-optimizations |
Decision: security/correctness/reliability risk? -> BLOCKING. Violates patterns or creates maintenance burden? -> SHOULD FIX. Purely stylistic? -> SUGGESTION.
Verdict Rules
| Condition | Verdict |
|---|---|
| Any BLOCKING finding | REQUEST-CHANGES (or BLOCK) |
| SHOULD FIX findings, no BLOCKING | FIX before merge |
| Only SUGGESTION or clean | APPROVE |
Omit empty severity sections. Include review scope, evidence, and limitations. Validate output:
What ships with it
6 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.
- yesterday Changed · +2 lines e695e6ffd936
- 22d ago Changed · +181 lines b7eac1613118
- 26d ago Changed · -180 lines bc75ab0fc3be
- 27d ago First seen · 217 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A f73db8fdf130
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository notque/vexjoy-agent (442 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,965 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-20.
Other skills, from other repositories
godot-code-review
Use when reviewing GDScript or C# Godot code — checklist of best practices, common anti-patterns, and Godot-specific pitfalls. Triggers on "review this script", "check my code", "any issues with this", "what's wrong with this code", including a short pasted snippet.
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…
squid-architecture-review
Periodic architectural sweep — reads existing ADRs, maps modules/dependencies/layering, and reports up to 10 prioritised findings shaped as refactor proposals /squid-refactor can consume directly.
squid-implement-night
Run the full agent-team pipeline end-to-end for one feature whose Tasks Plan is already approved by /squid-plan, handing the human a validated, ready-to-squash-merge PR. Trigger after /squid-plan.
pr-review
AUTHOR SKILL (internal to microsoft/aspire-skills). Reviews pull requests into this repo for problems only — bugs, regressions, missing eval coverage, frontmatter or routing damage, plugin-manifest drift, hook safety, and other concrete issues. Drives a six-step workflow: identify the PR, ensure the branch is…
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.