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 Raftersecurity/rafter-cli --skill rafter-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Raftersecurity/rafter-cliWrote 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/raftersecurity/rafter-cli/rafter-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/raftersecurity/rafter-cli/rafter-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/raftersecurity/rafter-cli/rafter-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/raftersecurity/rafter-cli/rafter-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/raftersecurity/rafter-cli/rafter-code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00123 | $0.01423 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00049 | $0.00569 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00285 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00142 |
Grade A, and why
rafter-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 — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Rafter Code Review — Structured Security Walkthroughs
A reviewer's skill, not an audit generator. Each sub-doc is a set of questions to run against the code — what to grep for, what to trace, what to ask before you sign off. No monolithic reports.
Pair with the
rafterskill (detection:rafter scan,rafter run) andrafter-secure-design(prevention: design-phase walks). This skill is the middle stage — review before merge.
When this applies (and when it doesn't)
Scoped to the security surface of the diff, not the task's label. Walk it fully when the change touches: user / untrusted input, SQL or query building, shell / exec / subprocess, auth or access control, credentials / secrets / tokens, file paths or uploads, (de)serialization, crypto, network-facing endpoints or outbound fetchers, data deletion, or dependency / manifest changes.
If none of those are present — research / experimental / exploratory / local-only / throwaway code such as training scripts, data analysis, plotting, model eval, notebooks, or pure computation over trusted local data — a quick surface check is enough; you don't need to walk the full review or pair rafter run. But the check is the surface, not the label: research code that reads a secret, shells out, hits the network, or parses untrusted bytes is back on the engage list and gets the full walk.
How to use this skill
- Identify the category of code in front of you (below).
Readonly the matching sub-doc — do not preload them all.- Work through its questions against the specific files/diff. Cite file:line evidence as you go.
- When in doubt on a single finding, jump to
docs/investigation-playbook.mdfor canonical follow-up questions. - Finish with
rafter run --mode pluson the same diff if the stakes warrant a deep automated pass.
Choose Your Adventure
(1) Web application (server-rendered, session-based, or SPA backend)
For: login flows, session/cookie handling, form handlers, template rendering, admin panels, anything browser-facing.
What ships with it
6 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 · 98 lines · 123 tokens per session scan A bb8693ae13f6
rafter-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Raftersecurity/rafter-cli (27 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 123 tokens to every session and 1,423 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…