Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to nwiizo/cargo-coupling. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nwiizo/cargo-coupling/main/.claude/skills/review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nwiizo/cargo-couplingWrote 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/nwiizo/cargo-coupling/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwiizo/cargo-coupling/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwiizo/cargo-coupling/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00027 | $0.00799 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00400 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00080 |
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 5d 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 — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Modularity Review
Structured review workflow inspired by Khononov's modularity analysis. Combines cargo-coupling's automated metrics with semantic code understanding.
Workflow
Step 1: Automated Analysis
cargo run -- coupling --ai $ARGUMENTS
Parse the output to understand current coupling state. AI output includes the full blind-spot manifest; treat "no issues" as "no observed issues", not as proof that no coupling risk exists.
Optional release/PR context:
# Time-series trend across git revisions
cargo run -- coupling --history $ARGUMENTS
# Diff current issues against the target branch
cargo run -- coupling --baseline main $ARGUMENTS
Step 2: Subdomain Classification
Read .coupling.toml for existing subdomain config.
If absent, examine the codebase and suggest classification:
- Core: Modules providing competitive advantage (frequently evolving)
- Supporting: Stable business logic (CRUD, ETL, data pipelines)
- Generic: Solved problems (auth, logging, config, web framework)
The [subdomains] section informs essential-vs-accidental volatility. Core modules are expected to change; supporting/generic modules with high churn can indicate Accidental Volatility.
Step 3: Map Integrations
For each detected coupling, evaluate across 3 dimensions:
- Strength: What knowledge is shared? Is it implicit or explicit?
- Distance: Code structure + team boundaries + runtime coupling
- Volatility: Business-driven (subdomain) + git-history-based
Look beyond explicit code dependencies for implicit coupling:
- Duplicated business logic across modules
- Shared magic constants/strings
- Assumptions about data format or ordering (connascence of meaning)
- Co-changing files without explicit dependencies
Automated issue signals to preserve in the review:
- Hidden Coupling: strong temporal co-change without an AST dependency
- Accidental Volatility: supporting/generic subdomain code with suspicious churn
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 114 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 2d1466c5e6fc
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository nwiizo/cargo-coupling (96 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 799 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 2026-09-01.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
gsd-ns-review
Route to the appropriate quality / review skill based on the user's intent. gsd-code-review-fix was absorbed by gsd-code-review --fix in #2790.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
gitnexus
A code-graph analysis add-on for examining an existing codebase, including symbols, call paths, execution flows, and effects across repositories. It can query GitNexus through its command-line or MCP interfaces.
cleanup-code-inspections
Reduce technical debt and improve code quality by systematically resolving static analysis warnings.
superlint
This skill describes the mandatory standard operating procedure for using our internal SuperLint tool. Use this when tasks require fixing code quality issues according to corporate standards.