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 agentmods add skills/pedromosquera/squadai/code-reviewnpx skills add PedroMosquera/squadai --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PedroMosquera/squadaiWrote 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/pedromosquera/squadai/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pedromosquera/squadai/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pedromosquera/squadai/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00003 | $0.00419 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00210 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00084 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00042 |
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 4d 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.
What it actually says
name: code-review description: Structured code review with severity-based findings
Code Review Skill
Perform a structured code review of the specified code. Follow this protocol to produce consistent, actionable feedback.
Steps
-
Understand context: Read the code and any related files to understand the purpose and design of the change.
-
Check correctness: Verify that the logic is correct.
- Are all code paths handled?
- Are edge cases covered (null, empty, boundary values)?
- Are error conditions handled properly?
-
Check error handling: Review how errors are managed.
- Are errors propagated with sufficient context?
- Are there silent failures or swallowed exceptions?
- Are retries and timeouts handled where appropriate?
-
Check naming and clarity: Evaluate readability.
- Are variable and function names descriptive?
- Is the code self-documenting or does it need comments?
- Are there magic numbers or unexplained constants?
-
Check test coverage: Assess testing.
- Are new code paths tested?
- Are edge cases and error paths tested?
- Do tests follow the project's testing conventions?
-
Check security: Look for security concerns.
- Are there injection vulnerabilities (SQL, command, template)?
- Are secrets or credentials hardcoded?
- Is user input validated before use?
-
Check performance: Identify performance issues.
- Are there unnecessary allocations or copies?
- Are there N+1 query patterns or redundant I/O?
- Are there unbounded loops or missing pagination?
Output Format
List findings grouped by severity:
Critical
Issues that must be fixed before merging (bugs, security, data loss).
Warning
Issues that should be addressed but are not blocking (style, minor inefficiencies).
Suggestion
Optional improvements (readability, alternative approaches, nice-to-haves).
If no issues are found in a category, omit that section.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 64 lines · 3 tokens per session scan A 7b28d2f34962
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository PedroMosquera/squadai (8 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 3 tokens to every session and 419 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
auth-web-cloudbase
CloudBase Web Authentication Quick Guide for frontend integration after auth-tool has already been checked. Provides concise and practical Web authentication solutions with multiple login methods and complete user management.
browse-and-evaluate
Use when exploring the ai-agent-skills catalog to find, compare, and evaluate skills before installing. Always use --fields to limit output size and --dry-run before committing to an install.
render-airdrop-carousel
Assemble a viral iOS "AirDrop" notification-carousel video ad (≈6–8s, 9:16) from a brand line plus 6–16 real product photos — a native AirDrop share-sheet card ("Brand would like to share a · Decline / Accept") springs up and its preview window CYCLES through the products, landing on a range/lineup payoff with an…
render-3d-product-showcase
Assemble a premium 3D product-showcase ad from a config — four beat clips (an orbiting hero rotation, a macro push-in, a physics reveal, a typographic close) normalized to the brand-color canvas, hard-concatenated in order, closed on a deterministic Playwright brand end card, and mixed under one instrumental bed at…
loop-engineering
Shared loop-engineering reference for COG skills - the agent loop, deterministic verifiers, termination conditions, in-loop context management, and named patterns. Invoke when designing or debugging a skill that iterates (search-verify-retry, scan-until-dry, fetch-retry-gate).
qa-knowledge
To run QA engineering — requirements/gap analysis, scenario & spec design, test implementation, failure triage — over the QA knowledge base.