Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Orinks/AccessiWeather. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Orinks/AccessiWeather/main/.codex/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Orinks/AccessiWeatherWrote 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/orinks/accessiweather/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/orinks/accessiweather/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/orinks/accessiweather/code-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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/orinks/accessiweather/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/orinks/accessiweather/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00012 | $0.02233 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00893 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00447 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00223 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 1mo 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 — 291 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Skill
Conduct a thorough code review for quality, security, and maintainability with severity-rated feedback.
When to Use
This skill activates when:
- User requests "review this code", "code review"
- Before merging a pull request
- After implementing a major feature
- User wants quality assessment
GPT-5.5 Guidance Alignment
- Default to outcome-first progress and completion reporting: state the target result, evidence, validation status, and stop condition before adding process detail.
- Treat newer user task updates as local overrides for the active workflow branch while preserving earlier non-conflicting constraints.
- If correctness depends on additional inspection, retrieval, execution, or verification, keep using the relevant tools until the review is grounded; stop once enough evidence exists.
- Continue through clear, low-risk, reversible next steps automatically; ask only when the next step is materially branching, destructive, credentialed, external-production, or preference-dependent.
Delegates to the code-reviewer and architect agents in parallel for a two-lane review:
-
Identify Changes
- Run
git diffto find changed files - Determine scope of review (specific files or entire PR)
- Run
-
Launch Parallel Review Lanes
code-reviewerlane - owns spec compliance, security, code quality, performance, and maintainability findingsarchitectlane - owns the devil's-advocate / design-tradeoff perspective- Both lanes run in parallel and produce distinct outputs before final synthesis
-
Review Categories
- Security - Hardcoded secrets, injection risks, XSS, CSRF
- Code Quality - Function size, complexity, nesting depth
- Performance - Algorithm efficiency, N+1 queries, caching
- Best Practices - Naming, documentation, error handling
- Maintainability - Duplication, coupling, testability
-
Severity Rating
- CRITICAL - Security vulnerability (must fix before merge)
- HIGH - Bug or major code smell (should fix before merge)
- MEDIUM - Minor issue (fix when possible)
- LOW - Style/suggestion (consider fixing)
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 291 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A d1ac54a5ca6b
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Orinks/AccessiWeather (24 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 2,233 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…