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/systematic-code-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/systematic-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/notque/vexjoy-agent/systematic-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/notque/vexjoy-agent/systematic-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/notque/vexjoy-agent/systematic-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/notque/vexjoy-agent/systematic-code-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 | $0.00024 | $0.01498 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00749 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00300 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00150 |
Grade A, and why
systematic-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 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 — 124 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Systematic code review
Review the change, verify its claims, assess risk, and report actionable findings. This is the shared review procedure. Parallel review divides its scope among reviewers; it does not add another full review afterward.
Reference loading
| Task | Reference |
|---|---|
| Select PR review scope and roster | ../../process/pr-workflow/references/pr-risk-policy.md |
| Review Go exports, concurrency, resources, metrics, or tests | references/go-review-patterns.md |
| Classify a finding | references/severity-classification.md |
| Respond to feedback | references/receiving-feedback.md |
Phase 1: UNDERSTAND
Read applicable repository instructions and the complete diff. Read enough surrounding code to understand each changed path and its consumers; load whole files when their structure matters. Check the requested outcome, compatibility requirements, and affected dependencies.
When signatures, parameter meanings, or sentinel values change, find all callers and interface implementations. Search receiver syntax such as .GetEvents(; use type-aware references such as gopls when available. Trace each parameter to its source:
- Query parameters can contain any user-supplied string, including
"*". - Token fields may be server-issued IDs; verify that boundary rather than assuming it.
- Constants and enums have a bounded value set.
Check validation at each caller. A reachable user input that bypasses a security filter is blocking. Verify the caller set yourself; the PR description may omit callers.
Record the reviewed base/head or working diff, scope, and material unknowns. Ask only when missing information prevents a sound review; continue independent checks.
Gate: Every changed path is accounted for, with affected callers traced where needed.
Phase 2: VERIFY
Reuse observed test and review results when they cover the current code, dependencies, configuration, and environment. Record their source and scope. A prior verdict alone is not evidence. After a fix, check the changed paths and affected consumers; repeat broader checks only when the fix invalidates their evidence or repository policy requires it.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 7d ago Changed · -247 lines scan C → A aa8304802688
- 9d ago First seen · 371 lines · 24 tokens per session scan C ae03e74353e2
systematic-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository notque/vexjoy-agent (419 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 1,498 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.
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-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…
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.
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…