review

review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from open-gsd/gsd-pi. It costs 32 tokens per session (1,893 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A read-only review process for code changes, including staged files, unstaged files, commits, and pull-request diffs. It examines the changed code together with surrounding source to find meaningful problems.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review local changes, commits, or pull-request-ready diffs before merging.
Why use it?
It focuses reviews on bugs, security risks, performance issues, and maintainability problems instead of minor style preferences. It reports findings without modifying the code.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it to review local changes, commits, or pull-request-ready diffs before merging.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/open-gsd/gsd-pi/review
About the project

GSD Pi is a command-line coding agent and project workflow system that plans, implements, verifies, and tracks software work through milestones, tasks, Git worktrees, and stored project notes. It is for developers who want structured, longer-running agent sessions using different model providers. The catalogue entries extend GSD Pi with skills and agents.

open-gsd/gsd-pi · 1,210 stars · on GitHub · opengsd.net

Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add open-gsd/gsd-pi --skill review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/open-gsd/gsd-pi

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/open-gsd/gsd-pi/review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/open-gsd/gsd-pi/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/open-gsd/gsd-pi/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/open-gsd/gsd-pi/review/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/open-gsd/gsd-pi/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/open-gsd/gsd-pi/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 32 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,893 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector warn 7 Sept 2026
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium

These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →

  • medium Excessive Agency · line 83
    Skill allows unbounded resource consumption (API calls, storage, compute). Without rate limits or quotas, a compromised or misbehaving agent can cause denial-of-service or cost overruns.
    Fix: Set explicit rate limits, timeouts, and resource quotas for API calls, file operations, and compute. Implement circuit breakers for runaway loops.
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00032 $0.01893
Opus 5 $0.00016 $0.00946
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00379
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00189

Measured 9d ago against content hash fb73ea985a3a, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-08, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review 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.

src/resources/skills/review/SKILL.md · 219 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 219 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

The reviewer reads both the diff and the surrounding source files to understand intent and catch issues that only appear in context.

<core_principle> FIND REAL ISSUES, NOT STYLE NITS. Focus on problems that cause bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance degradation, or maintainability pain. Avoid nitpicking formatting or subjective style preferences unless they harm readability. </core_principle>

<analysis_only_rule> THIS SKILL IS READ-ONLY. DO NOT MODIFY CODE.

The purpose is to review and report findings. Making changes during review conflates the reviewer and author roles. Present findings and let the user decide what to act on. </analysis_only_rule>

<working_directory_awareness> Before running any git command: check whether your dispatch context specifies a working directory (look for "Working directory:" in your initial prompt). If it does and pwd does not match it, prefix every git invocation with -C <that path> (e.g. git -C /path/to/worktree diff --cached). Reviewing the wrong directory's diff is a silent failure mode — the review will look correct but cover the wrong code. </working_directory_awareness>

<quick_start>

<determine_review_scope>

Parse the user's input to determine what to review:

  1. No arguments - Review staged changes first. If nothing is staged, review unstaged changes.

    • Staged: git diff --cached
    • Unstaged: git diff
    • If both are empty, review the most recent commit: git show HEAD
  2. Commit hash argument (e.g., /review abc1234) - Review that specific commit.

    • git show <hash>
  3. File path argument (e.g., /review src/foo.ts) - Review unstaged changes in that file.

    • git diff -- <path> then fall back to git diff --cached -- <path>
  4. "pr" argument (e.g., /review pr) - Review all changes since branching from main.

    • git diff main...HEAD
    • If on main, review git diff HEAD~1

After obtaining the diff, if it is empty, inform the user that there are no changes to review and stop.

</determine_review_scope>

<gather_context>

Before analyzing the diff:

  1. Read changed files in full - Do not review a diff in isolation. Read each modified file to understand the surrounding code, imports, types, and control flow.
  2. Identify the tech stack - Note languages, frameworks, and libraries in use. This affects what patterns are risky.
  3. Check for related test files - For each changed source file, look for corresponding test files. Note whether tests were updated alongside the changes.
  4. Check for configuration changes - If config files changed (env, CI, package.json, tsconfig, etc.), pay extra attention to side effects.

</gather_context>

<review_categories>

Analyze the changes against each category below. Only report findings that are actually present. Skip categories with no issues.

A. Security Issues (Severity: CRITICAL or HIGH)

  • Injection vulnerabilities (SQL injection, command injection, template injection)
  • Cross-site scripting (XSS) - unsanitized user input rendered in HTML
  • Authentication and authorization flaws (missing auth checks, privilege escalation)
  • Secrets or credentials hardcoded or logged
  • Insecure deserialization or unsafe eval usage
  • Path traversal or file access vulnerabilities
  • Missing input validation on external data

B. Performance Concerns (Severity: HIGH or MEDIUM)

  • N+1 query patterns in database access
  • Unnecessary memory allocations in hot paths or loops
  • Blocking operations on the main thread or in async contexts
  • Missing pagination on unbounded queries
  • Redundant computation that could be cached or memoized
  • Large payloads without streaming or chunking

Read the full file on GitHub · 219 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 9d ago First seen · 219 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A fb73ea985a3a

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a skill published in the GitHub repository open-gsd/gsd-pi (1,210 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,893 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.