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 oleg494/coding-kit --skill code-graph-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oleg494/coding-kitWrote 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/oleg494/coding-kit/code-graph-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/code-graph-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/code-graph-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/oleg494/coding-kit/code-graph-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/code-graph-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 | $0.00081 | $0.00831 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00332 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00166 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00083 |
Grade A, and why
code-graph-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 2d 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 — 48 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code graph review: what will the change break
Answers "what will this N-file change break". The graph path applies only when the code-review-graph MCP server and a built graph exist in this environment; otherwise use the native fallback — there is no obligation to install or build a graph for review. Never claim graph-level findings (hubs, communities, flows) that a native search did not produce.
Workflow (graph path — code-review-graph MCP present)
- Choose applicable diagnostics — use configured LSP and repository checks; unrelated diagnostics are not an automatic blocker.
- Check graph freshness — update incrementally only when writes are authorized. For a read-only review with stale graph data, use current source/LSP and state the graph limitation.
- Run
detect_changes— diff → risk score, priorities (what to look at first), test gaps. This is the main review tool. - Assess blast radius —
get_impact_radius(BFS depth over the diff),get_review_context(code snippets). Ask: "what will the N-file change break". - Check affected flows —
get_affected_flows/list_flows: which user paths pass through the changed files. - Architecture (if needed) —
get_hub_nodes(who is a hub),get_bridge_nodes(bridges),get_surprising_connections,get_architecture_overview,get_knowledge_gaps. - Dead code / rename —
refactor_tool(mode="dead_code");refactor_tool(mode="rename")→apply_refactor_tool. - Verify dead-code false positives via lsp (
find_references), don't delete blindly.
Native fallback (no MCP / no graph)
- List the changed symbols (diff → names), then find references/definitions via LSP or source search to enumerate direct callers.
- Walk callers one level for shared code; report which call sites you actually checked rather than implying exhaustive reachability.
- Rename impact: search all usages of the old name; show the replacement preview per site.
- Dead code: search for references; report "no references found in sources searched", not "dead" as an absolute.
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.
- 2d ago Changed 0d87c0944688
- 9d ago Changed · +8 lines · +10 tokens per session 931ee2cdb8a8
- 11d ago Changed c25e5300bb89
- 25d ago Changed 26e0f2c16d16
- 26d ago Changed 30e82c13c721
- 1mo ago Changed 54d6f5bf78f1
- 1mo ago Changed e28f248a5b34
- 1mo ago Changed ea64781fd3d0
- 1mo ago Changed 1ee03bc763d8
- 1mo ago First seen · 40 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A bcd6d0000b0a
code-graph-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository oleg494/coding-kit (3 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 831 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Find bugs and potential issues in code changes.
spae-inspect
Optimization & Verification for the SPAE framework. Performs gap analysis on PLAN.md.
clean
Orchestrates purification and refactoring agents sequentially.
simplify
This skill should be used when the user asks to "simplify", "clean up the diff", "run simplify", "simplify the changes", "review changed code for cleanup", explicitly invokes "/simplify", or asks to "commit without simplify", "skip simplify for this commit", or "commit this but skip simplify". Reviews changed code…
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…