Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev. 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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/main/.codex/skills/code-reviewing/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-devWrote 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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/code-reviewing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/code-reviewing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/code-reviewing/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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/code-reviewing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/code-reviewing.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 Memory Poisoning · line 127 Skill manipulates agent memory, state, or stored context. Memory corruption can alter personality, override safety rules, or cause unpredictable behavior.Fix: Protect agent memory and state from modification by untrusted content. Use read-only memory for critical instructions and validate all state changes.
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 | $0.00052 | $0.01600 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00800 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00320 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00160 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewing 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 157 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewing
Function length, nesting, broad types, hardcoded values, repeated resource construction, or multiple mocks are signals to investigate; they are not defects by themselves.
Contents
Always Review
Requirements and Correctness
- Trace the changed behavior to the user request or user-spec.
- Check happy paths, specified edge cases, failures, and state changes that the change owns.
- Identify behavior that was added accidentally or requested behavior that is missing.
- Separate new regressions from unrelated pre-existing problems.
Scope, Necessity, and Simplicity
- Trace each added behavior, validation, fallback, branch, state, abstraction, dependency, and configuration option to a current requirement, project contract, or realistic condition in the present codebase.
- Report unrequested machinery only when it expands behavior or creates concrete maintenance, correctness, performance, or testing cost. Fewer lines are not automatically simpler; compare responsibilities, states, branches, dependencies, and concepts the solution introduces.
- Check whether the project already has a direct capability that satisfies the requirement. An abstraction used once is acceptable when it expresses a real boundary; it is a problem when it adds indirection or generality without a current use.
- Evaluate the chosen algorithm against realistic input size and project constraints. Report avoidable complexity only when an existing project capability or direct requirement proves it unnecessary and the current choice has a demonstrable consequence; do not prescribe a replacement, speculative optimization, or wholesale redesign.
- Treat handling for extremely unlikely cases as a defect only when no requirement or realistic path justifies it and the extra handling materially complicates the normal path.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 157 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A f0ab362206ee
code-reviewing is a skill published in the GitHub repository pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev (286 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 1,600 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
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.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
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…