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-review-and-qualitygit 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-review-and-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/code-review-and-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/code-review-and-quality/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-review-and-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/code-review-and-quality.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 | $0.00051 | $0.01128 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00451 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00226 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00113 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-and-quality 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 — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Overview
Multi-dimensional code review with quality gates. Five axes: correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance.
The approval standard: Approve a change when it definitely improves overall code health, even if it isn't perfect. Perfect code doesn't exist. Don't block a change because it isn't exactly how you would have written it.
Review Scope: Diff-Review vs Whole-System Audit
Review scope must be explicitly defined:
- Diff-review (default PR / branch gate): focus on changed lines and their direct blast radius. Apply "What NOT to Flag" below to suppress noise in unchanged code.
- Whole-system audit (security / architecture / repository audit): inspects system-wide invariants across the codebase. Whole-system audits are NOT bound by the diff-boundary rule and must report material defects across all scanned files.
What NOT to Flag (Diff-Review Scope)
Review noise buries real findings. In diff-review scope, never report:
- Theoretical risks — no exploit path in THIS change's reality.
- Defense-in-depth when the primary control suffices.
- Unrelated pre-existing issues. Include an unchanged caller when the change makes its behavior fail; the affected path, not line ownership, sets scope.
- "Consider library X" — no new-dependency suggestions in review.
Severity: 3 Values
- critical — blocks merge: real bug, broken contract, fraud.
- warning — important finding to resolve; alone not an automatic merge blocker unless cumulative quality threshold requires it.
- suggestion — optional improvement; never blocks.
Report Format (machine-checkable counts)
End every review with the counts; the verdict is recomputed from them
(verdict_from_counts — see fable-judge):
counts: critical: N | warning: N | suggestion: N
verdict: <VERIFIED | VERIFIED WITH CAVEATS | REFUTED>
The Five-Axis Review
1. Correctness
- Does it match the spec or task requirements?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values)?
- Are error paths handled (not just the happy path)?
- Does it pass all tests? Are the tests actually testing the right things?
- For reachable inputs omitted by the spec, judge failures against the stated contract and reasonable consumer expectations; spec silence does not excuse a crash. Do not turn that into speculative features or unrelated hardening.
- Name material requirements you could not judge and the missing evidence; an unexamined path is not an approval.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 2d ago Changed · +6 lines 5bb1680290be
- 8d ago Changed 3e7fb7a4acee
- 11d ago Changed 9db9c849fa5a
- 25d ago Changed fa3a24205985
- 26d ago Changed a0a8e61f6a02
- 1mo ago Changed b1b24e92c553
- 1mo ago Changed e42087c21ab1
- 1mo ago Changed e9d6f2e2ced6
- 1mo ago Changed · +5 lines 444216e98ae1
- 1mo ago First seen · 107 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 1a95bec488e6
code-review-and-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository oleg494/coding-kit (3 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 1,128 once invoked, about $0.0002 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…