Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to proggarapsody/bitbottle. 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/proggarapsody/bitbottle/main/.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/proggarapsody/bitbottleWrote 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/proggarapsody/bitbottle/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/proggarapsody/bitbottle/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/proggarapsody/bitbottle/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/proggarapsody/bitbottle/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/proggarapsody/bitbottle/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 | $0.00094 | $0.01510 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.00604 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00302 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00151 |
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 18d 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 code-review — 8 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 — 88 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:
- Standards: does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec: does the code faithfully implement the originating issue / spec?
Both axes run as parallel sub-agents so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
The issue tracker should have been provided to you. If docs/agents/issue-tracker.md is missing, tell the user to run /setup-matt-pocock-skills.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point
Whatever the user said is the fixed point (a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc.). If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.
Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here, not inside two parallel sub-agents.
2. Identify the spec source
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
- Issue references in the commit messages (
#123,Closes #45, GitLab!67, etc.), fetched via the workflow indocs/agents/issue-tracker.md. - A path the user passed as an argument.
- A spec file under
docs/,specs/, or.scratch/matching the branch name or feature. - If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
3. Identify the standards sources
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.
On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below: a fixed set of Fowler code smells (Refactoring, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:
- The repo overrides. A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
- Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation. Like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 18d ago First seen · 88 lines · 94 tokens per session scan A 47f4e52c2169
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository proggarapsody/bitbottle (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 94 tokens to every session and 1,510 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-review, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autofix-pr
Watch a pull request and fix it from a worktree of its own - CI failures, review feedback from trusted authors and merge conflicts are fixed, pushed to the PR branch and answered on the PR under the user's git and gh identity. Usage - /autofix-pr [ | ] [--once] [--every ] [--no-reply] [--yes] [instructions]…
loop-gh-pr
A recipe for a scheduled GitHub pull-request watcher. It checks open pull requests for new activity and prepares read-only review drafts without posting comments or merging anything.
git-iris
Use this skill when generating commit messages, pull request descriptions, release notes, changelogs, or code reviews in a repository where git-iris is available. Activates on requests like "commit this", "write a commit message", "draft a PR", "generate release notes", "write a changelog", or "review my changes" when…
requesting-code-review
Use when implementation is done and you need a structured pre-PR review workflow. Triggers: 'ready for review', 'review my changes before PR', 'pre-merge check', 'is this ready', 'submit for review'. NOT for: post-merge review (use code-review) or deciding how to integrate (use finishing-a-development-branch).
openclaw-github-repo-commander
7-stage super workflow for GitHub repo audit, cleanup, PR review, and competitor analysis.
team-conventions
The conventions this team actually follows — naming, branching, review, and the decisions someone already made so nobody re-litigates them. Use when writing or reviewing code here, opening a PR, or when unsure "how do we do this".