code-review-error-handling

code-review-error-handling is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from randomm/pi-ensemble. It costs 33 tokens per session (2,591 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A code-review checklist focused on how software detects, reports, and recovers from errors.

In plain words
What is it for?
It is for reviewing error propagation, exceptions, timeouts, retries, partial failures, cleanup, and diagnostic context.
Why use it?
It helps catch failures that are hidden, poorly reported, or leave only part of an operation completed.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit It is for reviewing error propagation, exceptions, timeouts, retries, partial failures, cleanup, and diagnostic context.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/randomm/pi-ensemble/code-review-error-handling
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.

Any agent
npx skills add randomm/pi-ensemble --skill code-review-error-handling
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/randomm/pi-ensemble

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for code-review-error-handling

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/randomm/pi-ensemble/code-review-error-handling/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/randomm/pi-ensemble/code-review-error-handling)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/randomm/pi-ensemble/code-review-error-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/randomm/pi-ensemble/code-review-error-handling/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for code-review-error-handling

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/randomm/pi-ensemble/code-review-error-handling"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/randomm/pi-ensemble/code-review-error-handling.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 33 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,591 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
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 5.1 $0.00033 $0.02591
Opus 5.5 $0.00013 $0.01036
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00007 $0.00518
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00259

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 37e91d103771, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

code-review-error-handling 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.

skill/code-review-error-handling/SKILL.md · 155 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Code Review: Error Handling Lens

Specialized agent for error-handling and resilience analysis during code review. Focuses on how the code signals, propagates, contains, and recovers from failure — and whether failure leaves the system in a consistent, observable state.

Scope Discipline

When PM explicitly dispatches this lens:

  • ✅ Review error-signalling discipline: ignored return codes, suppressed results, unchecked error types
  • ✅ Analyze exception/error hygiene: overbroad catches, empty catches, swallowed errors, lost stack traces
  • ✅ Check propagation: errors surfaced at the correct layer, not buried beneath
  • ✅ Verify timeout and cancellation discipline on all external I/O
  • ✅ Verify retry semantics: bounded attempts, backoff, idempotency under replay
  • ✅ Verify partial-failure handling in batch / multi-step operations
  • ✅ Verify error observability: caught errors carry enough context to diagnose
  • ✅ Verify resource cleanup on error paths (handles, locks, connections)

Do NOT broaden into:

  • ❌ Security vulnerabilities per se (use SECURITY lens) — but note: error leakage that reveals internals to callers is a SECURITY cross-lens concern
  • ❌ Type correctness (use TYPE_SAFETY lens)
  • ❌ Raw throughput / algorithmic cost (use PERFORMANCE lens) — but note: unbounded retries with no backoff is a resilience concern, flag here
  • ❌ Structural coupling / SRP (use ARCHITECTURE lens) — but note: transactional-vs-external-store boundary issues are ARCHITECTURE territory; if in doubt, flag with cross_lens_candidate=true
  • ❌ Readability (use SIMPLICITY lens)

Output Format

All findings must follow this structure:

## Must Fix
- [CRITICAL|HIGH] [path:line] Title
  - Description: What is wrong and why it matters
  - Suggestion: Specific fix with code example
  - Metadata: cross_lens_candidate=true/false, tradeoff_required=true/false

## Observations
- [MEDIUM|LOW] [path:line] Title
  - Description: Informational finding
  - Metadata: cross_lens_candidate=true/false, tradeoff_required=true/false

## Summary
[One paragraph overall assessment]

Read the full file on GitHub · 155 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. 1mo ago First seen · 155 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 37e91d103771

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review-error-handling is a skill published in the GitHub repository randomm/pi-ensemble (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 2,591 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

autoreview

Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.

openclaw/clawhub · 17 tokens

omh-code-review

This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).

rlaope/oh-my-hermes · 48 tokens

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"…

umputun/revdiff · 84 tokens

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…

LilMGenius/paperthin · 70 tokens

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…

dzhng/skills · 162 tokens

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…

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills · 65 tokens