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 PANYUXIN6/pyx-skills --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PANYUXIN6/pyx-skillsWrote 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/panyuxin6/pyx-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/panyuxin6/pyx-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/panyuxin6/pyx-skills/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/panyuxin6/pyx-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/panyuxin6/pyx-skills/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00080 | $0.02371 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.01185 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00474 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00237 |
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 2d 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 — 189 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Use this Skill as the thin orchestration layer for code review. Let Codex understand
intent, contracts, behavior, and risk; let scripts/review.mjs own mechanically
decidable target membership, snapshots, evidence coordinates, declared dispositions,
challenge coverage, input freshness, and conclusion consistency. The Runner does not
dispatch the model and cannot prove that an Agent understood an item or that a
challenge verdict is semantically true or independent; a successful command proves
only the frozen inputs and recorded process state, not semantic completeness or
correctness.
Keep target code, specifications, and Git history read-only until the user separately authorizes fixes. Runtime and candidate artifacts may be written only outside the target repository unless the user explicitly chooses another location.
Before invoking the Runner or creating review artifacts, require both an implementation target and explicit review intent. Requests to find bugs or risks, assess quality, verify correctness or requirement compliance, check coding or implementation standards, perform a named review dimension, or produce Findings satisfy the intent gate. Requests that only ask to read, explain, summarize, map, or trace architecture, data flow, implementation behavior, or an implementation approach do not. A neutral verb such as "inspect", "check", "look at", or "检查一下" does not satisfy the gate by itself. For exploratory requests, do not invoke the Runner or create Finding artifacts; use ordinary repository exploration or another directly applicable Skill.
The review target must contain at least one software implementation artifact. Treat prose requirements and design documents only as authority or context for evaluating that implementation. If the user asks to review a document's own clarity, structure, consistency, or design quality, this Skill and its Runner are out of scope.
1. Establish authority and target
Read all repository rules governing the target, such as applicable AGENTS.md,
CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, and coding standards. Load only architecture documents
and ADRs relevant to the changed modules, contracts, or call paths. Repository rules
and confirmed requirements override this general baseline.
What ships with it
14 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.
- references/acceptance-review.md 4.6 KB
- references/architecture-standards.md 1.9 KB
- references/challenges.schema.json 4.1 KB
- references/correctness-quality.md 2.5 KB
- references/finding-challenge.md 4.3 KB
- references/findings.schema.json 2.5 KB
- references/focused-review.md 1.7 KB
- references/removal-plan.md 1.3 KB
- references/review-runtime-protocol.md 8.0 KB
- references/routine-review.md 2.8 KB
- references/security-reliability.md 2.4 KB
- references/spec-compliance.md 1.6 KB
- scripts/review.mjs 60 KB runs code
- scripts/review.test.mjs 38 KB runs code
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.
- 2d ago Changed · -113 tokens per session 5c8cd58a7474
- 8d ago First seen · 189 lines · 193 tokens per session scan A f992ee9b5ed0
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository PANYUXIN6/pyx-skills (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 2,371 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…