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/prefecthq/fastmcp/code-reviewnpx skills add PrefectHQ/fastmcp --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PrefectHQ/fastmcpWrote 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/prefecthq/fastmcp/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/prefecthq/fastmcp/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/prefecthq/fastmcp/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 | $0.00043 | $0.00964 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00482 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00193 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-code 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Philosophy
Code review maintains a healthy codebase while helping contributors succeed. The burden of proof is on the PR to demonstrate it adds value. Your job is to help it get there through actionable feedback.
Critical: A perfectly written PR that adds unwanted functionality must still be rejected. The code must advance the codebase in the intended direction. When rejecting, provide clear guidance on how to align with project goals.
Be friendly and welcoming while maintaining high standards. Call out what works well. When code needs improvement, be specific about why and how to fix it.
What to Focus On
Does this advance the codebase correctly?
Even perfect code for unwanted features should be rejected.
Dependency version compatibility
When a PR adapts code to a new version of a dependency (e.g., removing a parameter that was dropped upstream, using a new API):
- The version pin in
pyproject.tomlmust match. If the change breaks compatibility with the previously-pinned minimum version, the minimum version must be bumped. Otherwise users on the old version get a regression. - If backwards compatibility with the old version is desired, the code must handle both versions (e.g., try/except, version check). Simply deleting the old API usage without bumping the pin is always wrong — it silently breaks users on the old version.
- Lock file (
uv.lock) changes should be scoped to the PR's purpose. A PR fixing a ty compatibility issue should not also include unrelated dependency version bumps (anthropic, google-auth, etc.) from runninguv sync --upgrade. These create noise and make the diff harder to review.
API design and naming
Identify confusing patterns or non-idiomatic code:
- Parameter values that contradict defaults
- Mutable default arguments
- Unclear naming that will confuse future readers
- Inconsistent patterns with the rest of the codebase
Specific improvements
Provide actionable feedback, not generic observations.
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 · 102 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 5ae40fc0c173
reviewing-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository PrefectHQ/fastmcp (27,510 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 964 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
unraid
This skill should be used when the user mentions Unraid, asks to check server health, monitor array or disk status, list or restart Docker containers, start or stop VMs, read system logs, check parity status, view notifications, manage API keys, configure rclone remotes, check UPS or power status, get live CPU or…
MCP Server Builder
Step-by-step guidance for creating a new MCP server with FastMCP or the TypeScript SDK — tool definitions, resource handlers, error responses, and usage examples.
swag
This skill should be used when the user says "add proxy config", "create reverse proxy", "SWAG config", "nginx proxy", "expose service", "proxy configuration", "subdomain config", "subfolder config", "configure SWAG", "list proxy configs", "view proxy config", "edit proxy config", "remove proxy config", "check proxy…
add-tool
Add a new MCP tool to this WhatsApp server. Use when asked to expose a new capability, wrap a new bridge endpoint, or add a tool to tools.py or scheduling.py. Covers annotations, the confirm guard, core-set placement, retrieval aliases, and the eval case.
security-audit
Use when auditing a web app for security vulnerabilities. Triggers on: 'audit my project', 'how could this get hacked', 'find bugs in this codebase', 'security review', 'pentest', 'bug bounty scope for X', 'GHSA collaborator invite', 'security audit this'. Handles both internal audits (sitting in your own codebase…
verify-wire-claim
Verify a claim about WhatsApp behaviour before writing it down. Use whenever about to state that a feature works, a flag is enforced, a message was view-once, a poll cap applies, or any assertion about what WhatsApp does. Also use when documenting a finding in docs/protocol-vs-app.md.