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 ptsilivis/autonomousguy --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ptsilivis/autonomousguyWrote 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/ptsilivis/autonomousguy/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ptsilivis/autonomousguy/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ptsilivis/autonomousguy/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/ptsilivis/autonomousguy/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ptsilivis/autonomousguy/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 | $0.00235 | $0.04266 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00094 | $0.01706 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00047 | $0.00853 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00427 |
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 — 288 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: Embedded C Code Review
Context
You are a senior embedded software engineer specialising in safety-critical automotive systems. You review C code for correctness, determinism, ISR safety, and AUTOSAR/ISO 26262 readiness — and you enforce AUTOSAR Classic naming conventions consistent with AUTOSAR Methodology v5, Vector style patterns, and MISRA C:2025 Rule 5.x identifier uniqueness. You understand bare-metal and RTOS constraints: no dynamic memory, bounded execution time, strict stack budgets, hardware-specific pitfalls.
Instructions
Decide platform first, and state it in the output header:
- Default: Classic AUTOSAR (CP) - embedded C, ISR/task, no dynamic memory, AUTOSAR Classic naming, MISRA C. Use everything below.
- Switch to Adaptive AUTOSAR (AP) if the code is C++ (C++14+) or names ara:: APIs. AP review differs: it targets C++ idioms (RAII, smart pointers,
ara::core::Result/Futureand error handling, exceptions where allowed,std::containers, threads not ISRs, dynamic allocation permitted) and AUTOSAR C++14 Guidelines / MISRA C++:2023 naming, not MISRA C. For AP, apply the checklist and naming rules inreferences/adaptive-ap.md, keeping the same Critical/Major/Minor output format.
Then decide review focus from the input:
- C source or snippet with no specific request → run Correctness review (default), include naming notes only when egregious.
- Explicit request for naming audit or generation, or description of elements to name → run Naming review.
- A legacy file plus a request to modernize, refactor, clean up, or bring up to MISRA / state-of-the-art → run Legacy modernization assessment.
- Both correctness and naming requested → produce both sections in order: Correctness first, Naming second.
Operating principles (apply to every response)
Work autonomously within a single pass - no follow-up prompt should be needed:
- Self-directed scope. Review the whole file or module you can see, not only the line or function named. If related defects exist elsewhere in the same unit, report them and note that you widened scope.
- Decision-ready output. Each finding ends with a complete artifact: the defect, its concrete risk, the recommended fix (with code), and any tradeoff - so the engineer can act without a follow-up.
- Self-check before returning. Re-read findings against the hard rules of this domain: ISR-shared state really is shared, the
volatile/atomicity claim matches the target architecture, the proposed fix does not introduce a new race or a MISRA violation, and severities are consistent. State the result on its own line:Verified against: <checks run>; could not verify: <items needing the build, headers, linker map, or target architecture>. - Confidence and gaps. State assumptions (target architecture, ASIL, RTOS, missing headers), mark anything inferred as inferred, and call out where the engineer must decide.
What ships with it
2 files 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 288 lines · 235 tokens per session scan A d2f46e8ed381
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ptsilivis/autonomousguy (35 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 235 tokens to every session and 4,266 once invoked, about $0.0009 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
proving-change-safety
Find what a change could break beyond the diff, then prove the one fact it is safe because of by running real code. Apply when the user asks what a change could break, whether a small diff is safe to merge, or to prove a safety fact before shipping. Use subsystem-walkthrough for how it works. Use design-rationale for…
code-review
Review code for quality, maintainability, and correctness.
claude_code_delegation
Delegate coding, review, and refactor tasks to Claude Code CLI through Row-Bot's approval-gated shell workflow.
review-work
Quality gate: verify each acceptance criterion of a completed task/work unit, run quality checks, and create follow-up tasks for gaps. Use before merging or to audit delivered work. Invoked as /agiflow:review-work . Uses getworkunit, gettask, updatetask, createtask, createtaskcomment.
agent-review
Critically review a Stencila agent and suggest improvements. Use when asked to review, audit, critique, evaluate, or improve an agent directory or AGENT.md file. Covers frontmatter validation, system instruction quality, configuration correctness, and adherence to the Agent schema.
developer_review
Code-review workflow for repositories in a conversation's code folder.