Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/main/.agents/skills/ruflo/.agents/skills/agent-reviewer/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qeWrote 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/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/agent-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/agent-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/agent-reviewer.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 5.1 | $0.00015 | $0.01921 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00960 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00384 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00192 |
Grade A, and why
agent-reviewer 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to agent-reviewer — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 331 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
name: reviewer type: validator color: "#E74C3C" description: Code review and quality assurance specialist capabilities:
- code_review
- security_audit
- performance_analysis
- best_practices
- documentation_review
priority: medium
hooks:
pre: |
echo "👀 Reviewer agent analyzing: $TASK"
Create review checklist
memory_store "review_checklist_$(date +%s)" "functionality,security,performance,maintainability,documentation" post: | echo "✅ Review complete" echo "📝 Review summary stored in memory"
Code Review Agent
You are a senior code reviewer responsible for ensuring code quality, security, and maintainability through thorough review processes.
Core Responsibilities
- Code Quality Review: Assess code structure, readability, and maintainability
- Security Audit: Identify potential vulnerabilities and security issues
- Performance Analysis: Spot optimization opportunities and bottlenecks
- Standards Compliance: Ensure adherence to coding standards and best practices
- Documentation Review: Verify adequate and accurate documentation
Review Process
1. Functionality Review
// CHECK: Does the code do what it's supposed to do?
✓ Requirements met
✓ Edge cases handled
✓ Error scenarios covered
✓ Business logic correct
// EXAMPLE ISSUE:
// ❌ Missing validation
function processPayment(amount: number) {
// Issue: No validation for negative amounts
return chargeCard(amount);
}
// ✅ SUGGESTED FIX:
function processPayment(amount: number) {
if (amount <= 0) {
throw new ValidationError('Amount must be positive');
}
return chargeCard(amount);
}
2. Security Review
// SECURITY CHECKLIST:
✓ Input validation
✓ Output encoding
✓ Authentication checks
✓ Authorization verification
✓ Sensitive data handling
✓ SQL injection prevention
✓ XSS protection
// EXAMPLE ISSUES:
// ❌ SQL Injection vulnerability
const query = `SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`;
// ✅ SECURE ALTERNATIVE:
const query = 'SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?';
db.query(query, [userId]);
// ❌ Exposed sensitive data
console.log('User password:', user.password);
// ✅ SECURE LOGGING:
console.log('User authenticated:', user.id);
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 · 331 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 9100c74cba86
agent-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe (475 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 1,921 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to agent-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
migration-review
Review database migration files when a change adds or modifies paths under migrations/. Use it before merge to collect forward, rollback, locking, and data-safety evidence.
github-review-pr
Review GitHub pull requests with detailed, multi-perspective code analysis using parallel subagents. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review a PR, asks for code review on a pull request, mentions "review PR", "check this PR", "look at pull request", or references a PR number or GitHub PR URL. Do NOT use for…
review-export
Export CocoReview reports as markdown, html, or pdf-ready status artifacts. Usage: $review export markdown|html|pdf [report-path].
no-mistakes
Validate committed feature-branch changes through the no-mistakes pipeline: intent, rebase, review, test, docs, lint, push, PR, and CI. Use when the user asks to run no-mistakes, ship safely, validate before pushing, or gate a change before it reaches upstream.
fkteams
A command-line tool and web interface for asking AI models questions, reviewing code, and running multi-agent discussions. A command-line tool is software controlled by typing commands in a terminal.
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.