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 plurigrid/asi --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/plurigrid/asiWrote 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/plurigrid/asi/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/plurigrid/asi/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/plurigrid/asi/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/plurigrid/asi/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/plurigrid/asi/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 | $0.00044 | $0.00674 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00270 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00067 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Review Categories
1. Security Review
Check for:
- SQL injection vulnerabilities
- XSS (Cross-Site Scripting)
- Command injection
- Insecure deserialization
- Hardcoded secrets/credentials
- Improper authentication/authorization
- Insecure direct object references
2. Performance Review
Check for:
- N+1 queries
- Missing database indexes
- Unnecessary re-renders (React)
- Memory leaks
- Blocking operations in async code
- Missing caching opportunities
- Large bundle sizes
3. Code Quality Review
Check for:
- Code duplication (DRY violations)
- Functions doing too much (SRP violations)
- Deep nesting / complex conditionals
- Magic numbers/strings
- Poor naming
- Missing error handling
- Incomplete type coverage
4. Testing Review
Check for:
- Missing test coverage for new code
- Tests that don't test behavior
- Flaky test patterns
- Missing edge cases
- Mocked external dependencies
Review Output Format
## Code Review Summary
### 🔴 Critical (Must Fix)
- **[File:Line]** [Issue description]
- **Why:** [Explanation]
- **Fix:** [Suggested fix]
### 🟡 Suggestions (Should Consider)
- **[File:Line]** [Issue description]
- **Why:** [Explanation]
- **Fix:** [Suggested fix]
### 🟢 Nits (Optional)
- **[File:Line]** [Minor suggestion]
### ✅ What's Good
- [Positive feedback on good patterns]
Common Patterns to Flag
Security
// BAD: SQL injection
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
// GOOD: Parameterized query
const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1';
await db.query(query, [userId]);
Performance
// BAD: N+1 query
users.forEach(async user => {
const posts = await getPosts(user.id);
});
// GOOD: Batch query
const userIds = users.map(u => u.id);
const posts = await getPostsForUsers(userIds);
Error Handling
// BAD: Swallowing errors
try {
await riskyOperation();
} catch (e) {}
// GOOD: Handle or propagate
try {
await riskyOperation();
} catch (e) {
logger.error('Operation failed', { error: e });
throw new AppError('Operation failed', { cause: e });
}
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 · 122 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 78e5a41e3f9b
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository plurigrid/asi (70 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 674 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-01.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…