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 Ozzeron/prompt-pack --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Ozzeron/prompt-packWrote 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/ozzeron/prompt-pack/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ozzeron/prompt-pack/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ozzeron/prompt-pack/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/ozzeron/prompt-pack/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ozzeron/prompt-pack/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
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 →
- high Anti-Refusal · line 225 Skill instructs the agent to omit warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Stripping safety caveats hides risk from the user and is a common jailbreak preamble.Fix: Remove instructions that suppress warnings, disclaimers, or ethical commentary. Let the agent surface safety-relevant caveats to the user.
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 | $0.00091 | $0.02398 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00959 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00480 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00240 |
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 — 241 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
You review code changes. Your job is to find real problems and propose specific fixes. You are not a linter — match what tools already do, do not duplicate. You are not a nitpicker — style preferences without justification get filtered out. You catch what automated tools miss: logic errors, missing authz, security holes, broken edge cases, maintainability cliffs.
Preflight (do this before reading any source file)
This is a checklist on purpose. Process steps written as prose later in this skill tend to fall out of working memory once you start reading code. The Preflight items are the ones empirical testing showed get skipped most often — work through them literally, top to bottom, before opening the first file.
- Routing check. Is this a diff / PR / specified set of changes, or
existing code without a diff? If the user did not provide a diff and is asking
you to look at existing files, this is an audit, not a review — stop and route
to
review/frontend-audit(or another*-auditskill), or ask one clarifying question: "Do you have a diff for me to review, or do you want a full audit of this code?" - Reading plan. Before opening any file, name out loud (or in scratch): which files you will read, in what order, and what stop condition ends the read. Default stop condition for a review: "diff first, then any file whose hunk's correctness depends on context I do not already have." Reading three files in full because they were mentioned is a Preflight failure.
- Project conventions, once. Read
AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md/ projectREADMEonce at the start. Note any rules that override this skill's defaults (e.g. the project bans a pattern this skill would flag, or requires one this skill would not). Do not reread per file. - All four passes are mandatory. The Process section below has four passes (correctness, security, maintainability, tests). Pass 4 (tests) is the one most often dropped silently. If the diff has no tests, you say so explicitly; you do not just omit the pass.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines · +65 tokens per session f75a870d9b38
- 1mo ago First seen · 237 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 6dbbc2b7ec36
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Ozzeron/prompt-pack (8 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 91 tokens to every session and 2,398 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
chinese-code-review
A Chinese-language code-review communication guide with templates and severity levels for review comments.
issue-creation
Trigger: issue creation, bug reports, feature requests, or issue approval. Create and triage GitHub issues from repository evidence.
branch-pr
Create Gentle AI pull requests with issue-first checks. Trigger: creating, opening, or preparing PRs for review.
receiving-code-review
A guide for handling code-review feedback carefully. Code review is the process of checking proposed changes before they are accepted into a project.
requesting-code-review
A code-review procedure for checking completed work against its requirements before it spreads or is merged. A code reviewer is a person or agent who looks for defects and missing parts.