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/openclaw/carapace/autoreviewnpx skills add openclaw/carapace --skill autoreviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/openclaw/carapaceWrote 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/openclaw/carapace/autoreview)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/openclaw/carapace/autoreview"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/openclaw/carapace/autoreview.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00020 | $0.06641 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.03320 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.01328 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00664 |
Grade A, and why
autoreview 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 4d 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.
This is a copy
88% identical to autoreview — 36 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 413 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Auto Review
Run the bundled structured review helper as a closeout check. This is code review, not Guardian auto_review approval routing.
Codex review is the default when no engine is set. It uses gpt-5.6-sol with high reasoning by default, then retries once with gpt-5.6-terra only when the account cannot access Sol. Claude review is optional and uses claude-fable-5 by default.
For user-visible behavior, pair autoreview with behavior-validator. Autoreview is source-aware and judges the change bundle; behavior validation is source-blind and judges the running product or tool against a behavior contract. A clean autoreview is not proof that a UI, CLI, API, or generated artifact works from the user's perspective.
Use when:
- user asks for Codex review / Claude review / Pi review / autoreview / second-model review
- after non-trivial code edits, before final/commit/ship
- reviewing a local branch or PR branch after fixes
Contract
- Treat review output as advisory. Never blindly apply it.
- Verify every finding by reading the real code path and adjacent files.
- Read dependency docs/source/types when the finding depends on external behavior.
- Reject unrealistic edge cases, speculative risks, broad rewrites, and fixes that over-complicate the codebase.
- Prefer small fixes at the right ownership boundary; no refactor unless it clearly improves the bug class.
- When an accepted finding shows a bug class or repeated pattern, inspect the current PR scope for sibling instances before fixing.
- Fix the scoped bug class at once when practical; stop at touched surfaces, owner boundaries, and clear follow-up territory.
- Keep going until structured review returns no accepted/actionable findings only while the work remains inside the original task scope.
- If a review-triggered fix changes code, rerun focused tests and rerun the structured review helper.
- For security-audit suppression changes, verify accepted findings remain auditable: suppressed findings stay in structured output, active output keeps an unsuppressible suppression notice, and aggregate findings cannot hide unrelated active risk.
- Never switch or override the requested review engine/model except for the documented Codex Sol-to-Terra account-access fallback. Capacity, rate-limit, and unrelated failures keep the same engine/model.
- Be patient with large bundles. Structured review can take up to 30 minutes while the model call is active, especially with Codex tools or web search.
- Treat heartbeat lines like
review still running: ... elapsed=... pid=...as healthy progress, not a hang. Let the helper continue while heartbeats are advancing. Pass--stream-engine-outputwhen live engine text is useful; Codex and Claude filter tool/file chatter, other runnable engines pass raw output through. - Do not kill a review just because it has been quiet for 2-5 minutes, or because it is still running under the 30-minute window. Inspect the process only after missing multiple expected heartbeats, after 30 minutes, or after an obviously failed subprocess; prefer letting the same helper command finish.
- Tools are useful in review mode. Codex receives the validated bundle in an empty workspace so ignored files and linked-worktree metadata remain unreadable; web search stays available for dependency contracts and upstream docs.
- Security perspective is always included, but it should not cripple legitimate functionality. Report security findings only when the change creates a concrete, actionable risk or removes an important safety check.
- Reviewer subprocesses preserve engine authentication and non-credentialed proxy variables needed by headless or restricted-network environments while stripping process-injection, Git override, and credentialed proxy values.
- Review bundles fail closed before engine invocation when tracked or untracked paths look sensitive, patch text looks secret-like, or a Git diff exceeds the bundle limit. Redact/split the change; never accept a truncated patch as complete review proof.
- For regression provenance, keep roles separate: blamed code author, blamed PR author, PR merger/committer, current PR author, and PR/date. If no blamed PR is traceable, use the blamed commit as the provenance: commit SHA, date, and author username. Do not guess a merger or frame missing PR metadata as a separate finding.
- If the blamed PR was merged by
clawsweeper[bot]or another automation, identify the human trigger when practical. Check timeline/comments first; if rate-limited, use gitcrawl/cache or public PR HTML. Look for maintainer commands such as@clawsweeper automerge,/landpr, or labels/status comments that armed automerge. Reportautomerge triggered by @login; if not found, say trigger unknown. - Do not invoke built-in
codex review, nested reviewers, or reviewer panels from inside the review. The helper builds one bundle, calls one selected engine, validates one structured result, and stops. - Stop as soon as the helper exits 0 with no accepted/actionable findings. Do not run an extra review just to get a nicer "clean" line, a second opinion, or clearer closeout wording.
- Treat the helper's successful exit plus absence of actionable findings as the clean review result, even if the underlying Codex CLI output is terse.
- Multi-reviewer panels are opt-in only. Use them when explicitly requested or when risk justifies the extra spend; the main agent still verifies every accepted finding before fixing.
- If rejecting a finding as intentional/not worth fixing, add a brief inline code comment only when it explains a real invariant or ownership decision that future reviewers should know.
- If
gh/Gitcrawl reportsdatabase disk image is malformed, rungitcrawl doctor --jsononce to let the portable cache repair before retrying review; do not bypass the shim unless repair fails and freshness requires live GitHub. - If Gitcrawl reports a portable manifest mismatch, source/runtime DB health error, or stale portable-store checkout, run
gitcrawl doctor --jsonand inspectsource_db_health,runtime_db_health, andportable_store_statusbefore falling back to live GitHub. - Do not push just to review. Push only when the user requested push/ship/PR update.
What ships with it
8 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 413 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 8d92cf5decaf
autoreview is a skill published in the GitHub repository openclaw/carapace (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 6,641 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to autoreview, differing in 36 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
morphous-catalog
Create or refresh Morphous website design-system/theme bundles from animal, insect, plant, landscape, mineral, weather, or other nature motifs. Use when Codex is asked to generate Morphous motif images, light/dark design-system boards, reusable image prompts, generated web assets, shadcn/tweakcn theme exports, or the…
preline-mcp
Add, integrate, or build Preline UI components and blocks into HTML files via the Preline MCP server. Use when the user mentions "preline", says "/preline", asks to add a UI component, or requests a Preline block (a ready-made page section) using Preline UI.
preline-theme-generator
Generate, preview, save, or validate Preline theme CSS using the bundled local generator in this skill. Use when the user asks to create a new Preline theme, match a brand color, translate a mood into a theme, generate light and dark theme CSS, preview theme output without writing files, or review and fix generated…
tw-easing-gradients
Replace Tailwind CSS linear gradients with smooth eased gradients using tw-easing-gradients. Use when upgrading bg-gradient-to-, creating fading backgrounds, or smooth color transitions.
tailwind-best-practices
Stop your AI agent from generating Tailwind CSS v3 code. Rules for v4 syntax, CSS-first config, modern utility patterns, and common anti-patterns.
tailwindcss-docs
Comprehensive Tailwind CSS v4 reference covering installation, all utility classes, responsive design, dark mode, customization, and advanced patterns. Use whenever the user mentions Tailwind CSS, utility classes, styling components, responsive layouts, custom themes, or needs help with any Tailwind-specific code…