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 profclaw/profclaw --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/profclaw/profclawWrote 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/profclaw/profclaw/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/profclaw/profclaw/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/profclaw/profclaw/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/profclaw/profclaw/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/profclaw/profclaw/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 | $0.00017 | $0.00929 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00372 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00093 |
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.
The source is not reproduced here
Licensed AGPL-3.0
The repository is licensed AGPL-3.0, which this catalogue does not treat as permission to reproduce the file. Read it at the source.
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 · 117 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A dc413c096b2b
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository profclaw/profclaw (16 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed AGPL-3.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 929 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
plan-review-architecture
Architecture-dimension reviewer for written plans. Use when running plan-review or directly when an architectural review is wanted. Activate for keywords like "architecture review", "data flow", "failure modes", "rollback", "edge cases", "test matrix". Scores 5 sub-dimensions 0-10, produces ranked fixes. Always cite…
type-design-analyzer
Analyzes newly-added or significantly-modified types in a pull request for invariant strength, encapsulation, and enforcement. Produces 1-10 ratings on encapsulation/expression/usefulness/enforcement with concrete improvement suggestions. Use when reviewing PRs that introduce or substantially change types, classes…
code-review-loop
Use when opening a PR for review or when receiving review feedback. Activate for keywords like "code review", "PR review", "request review", "review feedback", "address comments", "reviewer said". Covers both ends of the loop: preparing a reviewable PR and acting on feedback rigorously. Always engage with every…
silent-failure-hunter
Audits error-handling code in a pull request for silent failures, broad catch blocks, unjustified fallbacks, and unactionable error messages. Surfaces hidden failures users would otherwise hit in production. Use when reviewing PRs that add or modify try/catch, error callbacks, or fallback logic.
comment-analyzer
Audits code comments added or changed by a pull request for factual accuracy against the code, long-term maintenance value, and misleading content. Recommends specific edits, additions, or removals. Use when reviewing PRs that include new or modified comments, docstrings, or inline documentation.
pr-test-analyzer
Reviews pull-request test coverage for critical gaps, edge cases, and brittle implementation-coupled tests. Prioritises behavioral coverage over line coverage and rates each finding 1-10 by criticality. Use when reviewing PRs that add or modify functionality and you want to assess whether the accompanying tests are…