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 phuonghx/aim-cli --skill code-review-checklistgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/phuonghx/aim-cliWrote 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/phuonghx/aim-cli/code-review-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/phuonghx/aim-cli/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/phuonghx/aim-cli/code-review-checklist/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/phuonghx/aim-cli/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/phuonghx/aim-cli/code-review-checklist.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 | $0.00067 | $0.00751 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00300 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00150 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00075 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-checklist 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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Checklist
A reviewer's running checklist. Walk the categories, flag what's missing, and tag findings by severity.
Fast Pass
Does it work?
- Behaves as intended
- Edge and boundary cases covered
- Failures are caught and handled
- No glaring logic errors
Is it safe?
- All external input validated and cleaned
- No injection paths (SQL, NoSQL, command, etc.)
- No XSS or CSRF openings
- No credentials or secrets baked into the source
- AI-specific: guarded against prompt injection where relevant
- AI-specific: model output cleaned before it reaches a sensitive sink
Is it fast enough?
- No N+1 query pattern
- No redundant loops or repeated work
- Caching applied where it pays off
- Effect on bundle/artifact size weighed
Is it clean?
- Names communicate intent
- No copy-pasted logic
- Solid design boundaries respected
- Abstraction pitched at the right level
Is it tested?
- New paths have unit coverage
- Edge cases exercised
- Tests are readable and stable
Is it documented?
- Tricky logic explained
- Public interfaces described
- README refreshed if behavior changed
Reviewing AI / LLM Code
Logic and fabrication risk
- Reasoning path: does the logic hold up when traced end to end?
- Failure states: are empty results, timeouts, and partial responses handled?
- Outside world: are assumptions about the filesystem or network actually safe?
Prompt construction
// Weak — raw user text, no structure or guardrails
const reply = await model.complete(userText);
// Strong — explicit role, cleaned input, enforced output shape
const reply = await model.complete({
role: "You parse invoices into JSON and nothing else.",
input: clean(userText),
schema: InvoiceSchema,
});
Smells Worth Flagging
// Unexplained literal
if (state === 2) { /* ... */ }
// Named instead
if (state === OrderState.SHIPPED) { /* ... */ }
// Arrow-shaped nesting
if (a) { if (b) { if (c) { /* ... */ } } }
// Flattened with guards
if (!a) return;
if (!b) return;
if (!c) return;
// ...real work
// One enormous function -> several focused ones
// Escape-hatch typing -> precise types
const payload: any = fetchIt(); // avoid
const payload: Invoice = fetchIt(); // prefer
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 · 100 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A fc2de6bb3262
code-review-checklist is a skill published in the GitHub repository phuonghx/aim-cli (1 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 751 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
auto-review
Use this skill to configure and understand the built-in auto-review plugin (wstack-auto-review) that fires automated code review subagents on every code change during a session. Triggers: user says "auto review", "otomatik review", "auto code review", "her değişiklikte review", "/auto-review".
codex-adversarial-review
Use this skill to conduct aggressive, adversarial code reviews on git changes, branches, or PRs to detect critical edge cases, race conditions, security holes, and data loss risks. Triggers: user mentions "adversarial review", "break the code", "find vulnerabilities", "security audit PR", "race condition check", "ship…
code-review
Use this skill when asked to review code changes — a pull request, a branch, a commit range, or the current diff — for correctness, security, and maintainability before they merge. Triggers: user says "review", "code review", "review this PR", "review my changes", "look over the diff", "is this ready to merge", "PR…
chimera
Use this skill for post-session code quality review of files added or modified during a WrongStack session. It runs automatically when a session ends, and on demand. Trigger on the explicit vocabulary — "review", "code review", "quality check", "post-session review", "chimeric review", "chimera" — and on the task…
code-quality
Find and remove unused code, ghost dependencies, unnecessary coupling and bundle waste with source-confirmed reachability. Use when cleaning exports or packages, reviewing Knip output or reducing dead code; use security-scanner for security findings and preserve public/dynamic entrypoints.
verify
Answer "is this shippable / done?" with evidence before a commit or PR — fires on "verify", "is this done", "ready to ship?", pre-commit or pre-PR. Part of the Agentsmith harness; runs the project's verify phases and never claims "passing" without showing the output (R5).