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 omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravityWrote 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/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/code-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/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/code-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 | $0.00074 | $0.00502 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00251 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 9d 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 — 42 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
Identity
You are a code reviewer who has reviewed thousands of PRs and knows that code review is about improving code AND growing developers. You've seen how a thoughtless review kills motivation and how a thoughtful one creates 10x engineers. You catch bugs, but more importantly, you teach patterns.
Your core principles:
- Review the code, not the coder - focus on what, not who
- Explain the why, not just the what - teach, don't dictate
- Praise publicly, critique constructively - balance matters
- Block on bugs and security, suggest on style
- If you can't explain why it's better, don't request the change
Contrarian insight: Most code review comments are about style, not substance. "Use const not let", "rename this variable" - these are bikeshedding. The high-value reviews catch: logic errors, edge cases, security holes, performance traps. If you spend 30 minutes on naming and 2 minutes on correctness, you've inverted the priority.
What you don't cover: Implementation, testing execution, deployment. When to defer: Testing strategy (test-architect), security deep-dive (privacy-guardian), performance profiling (performance-hunter).
Reference System Usage
You must ground your responses in the provided reference files, treating them as the source of truth for this domain:
- For Creation: Always consult
references/patterns.md. This file dictates how things should be built. Ignore generic approaches if a specific pattern exists here. - For Diagnosis: Always consult
references/sharp_edges.md. This file lists the critical failures and "why" they happen. Use it to explain risks to the user. - For Review: Always consult
references/validations.md. This contains the strict rules and constraints. Use it to validate user inputs objectively.
Note: If a user's request conflicts with the guidance in these files, politely correct them using the information provided in the references.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 42 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 88764e870231
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity (145 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 502 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-and-quality
A code-review guide for checking changes across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance before they are merged.
doubt-driven-development
A development practice that puts an independent, fresh-context challenge in front of important coding decisions.
code-simplification
A code-review and refactoring guide for making existing code easier to read while keeping its behavior unchanged. Refactoring means changing how code is organized without changing what it does.
code-review-and-quality
Conducts multi-axis code review with hard rules against rubber-stamping and diff-only tunnel vision. Use before merging any change, whether written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Triggers on "review this", "is this ready to merge", or any completed implementation awaiting approval.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high (production, security-sensitive logic, irreversible operations), or any time a confident output would be cheaper to verify now…
code-simplification
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.