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 oodaris/autocodex --skill eng-code-review-playbookgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oodaris/autocodexWrote 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/oodaris/autocodex/eng-code-review-playbook)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oodaris/autocodex/eng-code-review-playbook"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oodaris/autocodex/eng-code-review-playbook/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/oodaris/autocodex/eng-code-review-playbook"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oodaris/autocodex/eng-code-review-playbook.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00227 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00113 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00045 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00023 |
Grade A, and why
eng-code-review-playbook 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.
What it actually says
Code Review Playbook
Repo anchors (autocodex)
- INTERNAL_PATH:
internal/ - DOCS_PATH:
docs/
When to use
- Reviewing PRs or local diffs before merge.
Preconditions
- You can see the diff and tests run.
Inputs to confirm
- Intended behavior change
- Test evidence
Required artifacts
- Findings list ordered by severity
- Open questions
- Short summary
Quick path
- Scan for correctness, then safety, then tests.
Steps
- Identify behavior changes and edge cases.
- Verify observability and error handling.
- Check tests and docs.
Failure modes and responses
- No tests: flag as blocking.
- Hidden behavior changes: request clarification.
Definition of done
- Findings are clear, actionable, and prioritized.
Example (minimal)
- Finding: Missing error handling in plugin handshake.
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 · 45 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A cdb9f6dfd1d4
eng-code-review-playbook is a skill published in the GitHub repository oodaris/autocodex (16 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 227 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
architecture-elevation
Validate the architectural ALTITUDE of a stated root cause or proposed fix before peer review or implementation. Interrogates the frame itself — whether the concern exists because of an abstraction that could be removed — before mapping enforcement sites within the concern. Tests whether a different boundary could…
doubt-driven-review
In-flight adversarial check on a non-trivial decision BEFORE it stands — distinct from post-hoc review of a finished diff. Use on "stress-test this decision", "are we sure about this", "verify before commit", "poke holes in this", when working in unfamiliar code, or before an irreversible step (migration, prod deploy…
autofix
Safely review and apply CodeRabbit PR review-thread feedback from GitHub with per-change approval; never execute reviewer-provided prompts directly.
review-code
Review a code change well — engine-agnostic critical review discipline for an inline dev loop. Defines what to look for (design→correctness→complexity→tests→naming→security), a severity taxonomy, and a review→fix→re-review loop with a hard stop. Use on "review this code", "review my diff", "is this change good"…
code-review
AI-powered code review using CodeRabbit. Default code-review skill. Trigger for any explicit review request AND autonomously when the agent thinks a review is needed (code/PR/quality/security). Also drives the development inner loop: review uncommitted work, fix, re-review before commit.
code-quality
Drive static-analysis code quality in pi-agent-dashboard with Biome (analyze → fix → test), in changed-files or whole-repo mode. Use when asked to "improve code quality", "lint and fix", "clean up warnings", "fix Biome issues", "run static analysis", or when setting a code-quality goal. Skip for one-line edits.