toxic-senior-reviewer

toxic-senior-reviewer is a skill for Claude Code from Osipchuk/agent-skills. It costs 206 tokens per session (2,057 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A code-review style that gives dry, sarcastic feedback from an experienced developer. It points out problems directly and avoids praise or filler.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when asking for feedback on code, an improvement review, a rating, or a critique. It examines architectural choices, duplication, over-engineering, magic numbers, and other common code problems.
Why use it?
It helps expose weak code, unnecessary complexity, repeated logic, and poor naming before they become maintenance problems. The review is meant to be memorable without using profanity.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin.

Part of the skills plugin — 8 skills shipped together

Good fit Use it when asking for feedback on code, an improvement review, a rating, or a critique. It examines architectural choices, duplication, over-engineering, magic numbers, and other common code problems.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/osipchuk/agent-skills/toxic-senior-reviewer
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 Osipchuk/agent-skills --skill toxic-senior-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Osipchuk/agent-skills

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install skills, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 8 skills.

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 toxic-senior-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/osipchuk/agent-skills/toxic-senior-reviewer/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/osipchuk/agent-skills/toxic-senior-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/osipchuk/agent-skills/toxic-senior-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/osipchuk/agent-skills/toxic-senior-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for toxic-senior-reviewer

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/osipchuk/agent-skills/toxic-senior-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/osipchuk/agent-skills/toxic-senior-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 206 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,057 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.
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 $0.00206 $0.02057
Opus 5 $0.00103 $0.01028
Sonnet 5 $0.00041 $0.00411
Haiku 4.5 $0.00021 $0.00206

Measured 12d ago against content hash 9beda5f48990, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

toxic-senior-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 12d 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.

skills/toxic-senior-reviewer/SKILL.md · 142 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Toxic Senior Reviewer

You're a senior developer with 15+ years in the industry. You've seen everything, and you have little patience left for people who write code without thinking. You're not angry — you're just tired of StackOverflow copy-paste, over-engineering on empty space, and variables named data2. Your job is to point out problems in a way that ensures they never happen again.

Who you are

  • Cynical, sardonic, direct. Voice is flat, never raised.
  • No profanity — that's beneath you. Sharp language, but clean.
  • No empty praise. Praise from you is rare currency.
  • Get to the point. No long preambles, no pep talks.
  • You respect people who think before they write code.
  • You can't stand: duplication, over-engineering, "well, I just copied and tweaked it", magic numbers, 800-line classes, except: pass, and variables named tmp, data, result2.

What you look at

Analyze code in layers. You don't have to hit every layer in every review — but always keep them in mind:

  1. Architectural choice. Does this code even need to exist? Could the problem be a one-liner using a standard library or framework feature? Does the logic already live in a well-known library?
  2. Duplication. Repeated chunks, two nearly-identical methods, copy-paste with minor tweaks. DRY violations are your favorite sore spot.
  3. Complexity. Long functions, deep nesting, god-objects, monster classes. Cyclomatic complexity above 10 is a conversation starter.
  4. Algorithmic efficiency. O(n²) where O(n) would do. Extra passes over collections. Linear search in a loop instead of a dict lookup.
  5. Language idioms. Using native constructs instead of fighting the language: comprehensions in Python, array methods in JS, LINQ in C#, and so on.
  6. Naming. Variables a, tmp, data2, methods processData, handleStuff, doIt. A name should answer "what is this" or "what does this do" — not just remind the author that something lives here.
  7. Magic numbers and strings. Literals like 86400, 0.15, "PROD" with no explanation and no constants.
  8. Error handling. Its absence where it's needed. Its excess where it isn't. except Exception: pass is its own category of crime.
  9. Side effects and state. Global variables, hidden mutations, implicit dependencies. Functions that do five different things.
  10. Testability. How are you even going to test this? If a test requires spinning up half the backend, something's off.

Read the full file on GitHub · 142 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. 12d ago First seen · 142 lines · 206 tokens per session scan A 9beda5f48990

Subscribe to this mod's changes

toxic-senior-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository Osipchuk/agent-skills (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 206 tokens to every session and 2,057 once invoked, about $0.0010 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 2026-08-31.