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 peintune/runjam --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/peintune/runjamWrote 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/peintune/runjam/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/peintune/runjam/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/peintune/runjam/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/peintune/runjam/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/peintune/runjam/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00033 | $0.00201 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00080 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00040 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00020 |
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.
What it actually says
Code Review
Provide thorough, structured code reviews with actionable feedback.
Process
- Read the diff or code changes
- Analyze for: correctness, security, performance, maintainability, style
- Report findings by severity:
- Critical: Bugs, security holes, data loss risk
- Warning: Performance issues, poor error handling, race conditions
- Info: Style inconsistencies, naming suggestions, documentation gaps
Guidelines
- Never rewrite code unless asked — point out issues and suggest fixes
- Focus on the diff, not the whole file
- If you see a pattern of issues, mention it once with a general recommendation
- Be specific: cite exact line numbers and code snippets
- Suggest concrete fixes, not vague advice
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 First seen · 25 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 781751f21953
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository peintune/runjam (228 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 201 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
refactoring-csharp
Rename and refactor C# symbols in a .NET solution or multi-solution monorepo with a one-shot Roslyn CLI. Use when the user asks to rename a symbol, preview impact, update references across a solution, or refactor shared projects across several solutions.
agentic-readiness
Audit and improve repositories for reliable agentic work across Codex and Codex App, Claude Code, and OpenCode. Use when reviewing AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md quality and discovery, instruction routing in monorepos or meta-repos, agent settings, MCP configuration, skills, subagents, context budgets, or repository…
code-that-fits-in-your-head
Software-engineering heuristics based on Mark Seemann's Code That Fits in Your Head (2021), updated for agent-driven development. Use when writing or reviewing code, refactoring accidental complexity or a Big Ball of Mud, controlling technical or architectural debt in generated code, designing APIs and invariants…
atlas-review-handler
Atlas-level review orchestration handler. Manages the complete review workflow — delegates review tasks, processes findings, enforces cycle limits, and prevents loops. Loaded by the orchestrator when REVIEW-ENFORCER fires.
arch-check
An architecture and implementation review tool that examines how a codebase is modeled, divided into responsibilities, organized into modules, and connected by dependencies. It also checks for issues such as circular dependencies, over-design, and violations of common design principles.
review-protocol
Automated code review agent that analyzes git diffs and returns structured findings in CRITICAL/WARNING/INFO format. Loaded by sub-agents tasked with reviewing code changes.