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 nwiizo/ccswarm --skill review-fixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nwiizo/ccswarmWrote 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/ccswarm/review-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwiizo/ccswarm/review-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwiizo/ccswarm/review-fix/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/nwiizo/ccswarm/review-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwiizo/ccswarm/review-fix.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00569 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00228 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
review-fix 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 1mo 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When subagents are enabled in Codex, prefer delegating this workflow to the review-fix-agent custom agent.
Review uncommitted changes, fix actionable issues, and verify the result.
Workflow
Phase 1: Scope
git status --shortandgit diff --stat HEADto determine what changed.- If no changes exist, abort with "nothing to review".
Phase 2: Baseline
Run build and lint to establish a clean starting point:
cargo clippy --workspace -- -D warnings 2>&1 | tail -20
cargo test --workspace --no-run 2>&1 | tail -5
If the baseline already fails, report the failures and stop. Do not mask pre-existing breakage.
Phase 3: Review
Inspect the diff and new untracked files. Check for:
| Category | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Stale references | Deleted modules, commands, docs, or templates still referenced |
| Code duplication | Identical structs or functions across files worth extracting |
| Provider abstraction gaps | Hard-coded CLI names instead of the AgentProvider trait |
| Dead async | Async work discarded and then repeated synchronously |
| Sort instability | Utc::now() used as a fallback sort key |
| Hardcoded paths | Filesystem paths that should be relative to repo_path |
| Unused params | Accepted CLI arguments silently ignored |
| Security | Path traversal, credential leaks, unchecked user input |
Classify each finding:
- Fix: clear bug or correctness issue. Fix it now.
- Warn: design concern or missing feature. Report it, but do not fix unless trivial.
- Note: style or informational only.
Phase 4: Fix
For each fix-level finding:
- Make the minimal, surgical edit.
- Do not change unrelated code.
- After all fixes, run:
cargo clippy --workspace -- -D warnings
cargo test --workspace --no-run
If clippy or test compilation fails, revert the offending edit and downgrade it to a warning.
Phase 5: Report
Output a structured summary:
## Review + Fix Report
### Fixed
- <file>:<line> - <description>
### Warnings
- <file>:<line> - <description>
### Notes
- <description>
### Verification
- clippy: PASS / FAIL
- test compile: PASS / FAIL
- files modified: N
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 88 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A dddf0190ba4c
review-fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository nwiizo/ccswarm (153 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 569 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general improvement suggestions.
gsd-ns-review
quality gates | code review debug audit security eval ui.
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.
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…
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.