bot-reviewer

A code-review guide for chat bots on Telegram, Discord, Slack, and similar messaging platforms. It checks how bots handle callbacks, conversation state, request limits, and production risks.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review chat-bot changes, assess callback handling and state machines, check rate-limit behavior, and judge whether a bot is ready for production.
Why use it?
It helps find unsafe inputs, broken conversation flows, and reliability problems before they affect users. Reviews require evidence from the code and clearly separate confirmed issues from uncertain questions.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/random6913/claude-code-superkit/bot-reviewer
Any agent
npx skills add RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit --skill bot-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 28 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,446 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00028 $0.02446
Opus 5 $0.00014 $0.01223
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00489
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00245

Measured 2d ago against content hash b75119d1ee3a, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

bot-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 2d 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.

packages/codex/skills/bot-reviewer/SKILL.md · 226 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 226 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Chat Bot Code Reviewer

You are a code reviewer specializing in chat bot code. You review bots for Telegram, Discord, Slack, and other messaging platforms.

Review Discipline (two-stage)

Stage 1 — Discovery (coverage, not filtering): Surface EVERY candidate finding you notice, at any severity. Do not pre-filter for importance here. Better to surface a finding that gets filtered downstream than to silently miss a real bug.

Stage 2 — Triage: For each candidate, assign Severity (CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION) and Confidence (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW). Report HIGH/MEDIUM-confidence findings normally. Route LOW-confidence or ambiguous items to an Open Questions list — never drop them.

A clean review is a valid review — do not manufacture findings to look productive.

Evidence Gate (before emitting any finding)

Before reporting a finding, confirm ALL of:

  1. Exact citationfile:line (or file:start-end) you actually read.
  2. Concrete failure mode — the specific input/path that triggers it (no "could be problematic").
  3. Context checked — you read the surrounding code / caller, not just the line.
  4. Defensible severity — you can justify CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION to a skeptic.

Skip (do not report): style nits already enforced by a linter, hypotheticals with no trigger, and findings you cannot cite. A clean review is valid.

Review Process

Phase 1: Checklist (quick scan)

Run through the Review Checklist items below (22 checks). Report violations immediately without extended analysis.

Phase 2: Deep Analysis

After the checklist, analyze:

  1. What is the intent of this change?
  2. What are the possible failure modes?
  3. Are there edge cases the checklist didn't cover?
  4. Does this change affect other components?

Reason carefully about intent, failure modes, edge cases, and cross-component impact — then report only the conclusions (not the chain of thought).

Bot Architecture Detection

Before reviewing, detect the bot platform and framework:

Read the full file on GitHub · 226 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 226 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A b75119d1ee3a

Subscribe to this mod's changes

bot-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 2,446 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

apm-review-panel

Use this skill to run a multi-persona expert advisory review on a labelled pull request in microsoft/apm. The panel fans out to five mandatory specialists plus a test-coverage specialist (active on every PR that touches src/) plus three conditional specialists (auth, doc-writer, performance-expert), all running in…

microsoft/apm · 178 tokens

batch-bug-shepherd

Use this skill to drive a batch of suspected bugs in microsoft/apm from raw issue list to mergeable PR queue. Fan out one triage subagent per issue (LEGIT / UNCLEAR / FIXED-AT-HEAD), gate every legit bug against PRINCIPLES.md via an apm-ceo strategic-alignment pass, cross-reference legit issues against open PRs, then…

microsoft/apm · 227 tokens

apm-issue-autopilot

Use this skill to drive any open microsoft/apm issue (bug, feature, docs, refactor, perf) from raw intake to a mergeable PR with triage as the central, paramount gate. Run the apm-triage-panel rubric per issue first, then present ONE consolidated triage review for the whole batch and escalate to the maintainer BY…

microsoft/apm · 238 tokens

apm-spec-guardian

Use this skill to run a four-panel adversarial advisory review on any pull request that touches the OpenAPM specification artifact (docs/src/content/docs/specs/openapm-.md), its inline / sidecar JSON Schemas (docs/src/content/docs/specs/schemas/.schema.json), or the conformance fixture seed…

microsoft/apm · 215 tokens

apm-triage-panel

Use this skill to triage one microsoft/apm issue selected by the daily sweep, the status/needs-triage fast path, or manual dispatch. Emit one synthesized comment with a decision, label set, exact milestone, and suggested next action.

microsoft/apm · 59 tokens

cli-logging-ux

Use this skill when editing or creating CLI output, logging, warnings, error messages, progress indicators, or diagnostic summaries in the APM codebase. Activate whenever code touches console helpers (richsuccess, richwarning, richerror, richinfo, richecho), DiagnosticCollector, STATUSSYMBOLS, CommandLogger, or any…

microsoft/apm · 94 tokens