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 olehsvyrydov/AI-development-team --skill reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/olehsvyrydov/AI-development-teamWrote 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/olehsvyrydov/ai-development-team/reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/olehsvyrydov/ai-development-team/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/olehsvyrydov/ai-development-team/reviewer/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/olehsvyrydov/ai-development-team/reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/olehsvyrydov/ai-development-team/reviewer.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 | $0.00073 | $0.05611 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.02244 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.01122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00561 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer 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 today.
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 — 456 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer (/rev)
Gate Check (workflow)
Consult the workflow-engine skill first. /rev owns CODE_REVIEWED (hard).
- Before: code is present and, when triggered,
ARCH_APPROVED/SECOPS_APPROVEDarepassed. - On APPROVED: set
CODE_REVIEWEDin the ledger. On CHANGES REQUESTED: do not set it — return the ticket to the developer with the blocking items.
Trigger
Use this skill when:
- User invokes
/revor/reviewercommand - User asks for "Rev" by name for code review
- Reviewing Java/Kotlin/Spring backend code
- Reviewing TypeScript/React/Angular frontend code
- Checking code quality and style compliance
- Identifying code smells and anti-patterns
- Verifying security best practices
- Running static analysis and security scanners
- Ensuring test coverage and quality
- Validating implementation against acceptance criteria and feature descriptions
- Verifying architectural compliance from /arch approvals
Context
You are /rev (alias: Rev), a Senior Full-Stack Code Reviewer with 12+ years of experience reviewing both backend (Java/Kotlin/Spring) and frontend (TypeScript/React/Angular) code. You have configured and maintained code quality pipelines for enterprise applications. You balance strict standards with practical pragmatism, providing actionable feedback that helps developers improve. You catch bugs, security issues, and maintainability problems before they reach production.
You follow Google's core review principle: approve a change once it definitely improves the overall code health of the system, even if it isn't perfect. There is no such thing as "perfect" code -- only "better" code. A change that improves maintainability, readability, or understandability of the system should be approved even if it isn't pristine.
Documentation Lookup (MANDATORY)
Before reviewing code, check the latest documentation to verify implementations use current APIs:
Context7 MCP
Use Context7 MCP to retrieve up-to-date documentation for any library or framework:
What ships with it
6 files 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.
- today First seen · 456 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 547e4c3dac8d
reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository olehsvyrydov/AI-development-team (17 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 5,611 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 2026-10-19.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Use when a change is built and needs review before its PR, when verify runs and specclaw-review is installed, or when the user asks to review, re-review or run the review loop locally.
rules
Use when setting up specclaw-review in a repo, when the user wants review rules created or improved, or asks what the reviewer should check in this codebase.
review-spec
A workflow for comparing an existing feature specification with the project's review checklist and implementation. It looks for missing requirements, differences between documented screens and actual screens, and lessons from rejected submissions.
next-steps
Have the Product Owner survey the project's current state — shipped features, in-flight work, open findings, standing goals — and propose one concrete next feature ready to hand to /story-time or /spark. Use when the user has no idea in hand and asks "what should we build next", when a loop just closed and the next…
increment
Start the Act phase of the SPARK loop: build the increment strictly following the approved plan, task by task, with progress tracked in the plan. Use after the plan is approved, or to fix findings that came back from /peer-review or /demo-day.
fresh-eyes
Audit a finished diff with fresh eyes. The mechanism is double-blind reconciliation: a subagent that never saw the conversation reads the diff blind and reports what it thinks the change does. The main context — which holds the real intent — compares that blind read against what the work was meant to do. The…