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 agentmods add skills/oleg494/coding-kit/code-review-and-qualitynpx skills add oleg494/coding-kit --skill code-review-and-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oleg494/coding-kitWhat 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 | $0.00051 | $0.00715 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00358 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00143 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00072 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review and Quality
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.
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?
2. Readability & Simplicity
- Are names descriptive and consistent with project conventions?
- Is the control flow straightforward?
- Could this be done in fewer lines? (1000 lines where 100 suffice is a failure)
- Are abstractions earning their complexity? (Don't generalize until the third use case)
- Are there dead code artifacts: no-op variables, backwards-compat shims, or
// removedcomments?
3. Architecture
- Does it follow existing patterns or introduce a new one? If new, is it justified?
- Does it maintain clean module boundaries?
- Is there code duplication that should be shared?
- Are dependencies flowing in the right direction (no circular dependencies)?
- Does this refactor reduce complexity or just relocate it?
4. Security
- Is user input validated and sanitized?
- Are secrets kept out of code, logs, and version control?
- Is authentication/authorization checked where needed?
- Are SQL queries parameterized?
- Are outputs encoded to prevent XSS?
5. Performance
- Any N+1 query patterns?
- Any unbounded loops or unconstrained data fetching?
- Any synchronous operations that should be async?
- Any missing pagination on list endpoints?
Change Sizing
~100 lines changed → Good. Reviewable in one sitting.
~300 lines changed → Acceptable if it's a single logical change.
~1000 lines changed → Too large. Split it.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 81 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A ba0ed696669e
code-review-and-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository oleg494/coding-kit (1 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 715 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
run
Execute a named agent role with optimized instructions. Explicit invocation only ($run). Never trigger implicitly.
tip
Deliver a transformative life perspective shift and a productivity tip. Use when the user invokes /tip or wants non-technical inspiration or a fresh mental model.
agentic-evals
Design evaluation contracts and test plans for agentic systems. Create deterministic tests, trajectory evals, quality dimensions, gold-set criteria, and CI gates before or after implementation. Use when asked for tests first, an eval plan, success criteria, non-deterministic testing, LLM-as-judge setup, or…
agentic-production-readiness
Prepare an AI agent system for production operation. Cover SHIELD controls, sandbox/canary/production rollout, OpenTelemetry observability with GenAI semantic conventions, Agent Card drafting, governance, and post-deploy monitoring. Use for production readiness checks, go-live checklists, agent monitoring, agent…
agentic-security-review
Run a security and dependency audit for agent systems, tool-using AI apps, MCP/A2A integrations, or security-sensitive AI-generated code. Check slopsquatting risk, tool shadowing, rug pulls, memory/context poisoning, secrets, unsafe permissions, and common CWE patterns. Use when asked for security review, dependency…
agentic-spec
Create a structured specification before agentic coding work. Assemble the six context types, scale rigor for prototype/internal/production tasks, produce SPEC.md, and configure focused AGENTS.md boundaries. Use when asked to write a spec, plan a feature, design an agent/system, define architecture, or create…