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 ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas --skill code-review-checklistgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personasWrote 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/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/code-review-checklist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/code-review-checklist/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/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/code-review-checklist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/code-review-checklist.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 | $0.00023 | $0.02774 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.01387 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00555 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00277 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-checklist 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 11d 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
98% identical to code-review-checklist — 3 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 — 448 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Checklist
Overview
Provide a systematic checklist for conducting thorough code reviews. This skill helps reviewers ensure code quality, catch bugs, identify security issues, and maintain consistency across the codebase.
When to Use This Skill
- Use when reviewing pull requests
- Use when conducting code audits
- Use when establishing code review standards for a team
- Use when training new developers on code review practices
- Use when you want to ensure nothing is missed in reviews
- Use when creating code review documentation
How It Works
Step 1: Understand the Context
Before reviewing code, I'll help you understand:
- What problem does this code solve?
- What are the requirements?
- What files were changed and why?
- Are there related issues or tickets?
- What's the testing strategy?
Step 2: Review Functionality
Check if the code works correctly:
- Does it solve the stated problem?
- Are edge cases handled?
- Is error handling appropriate?
- Are there any logical errors?
- Does it match the requirements?
Step 3: Review Code Quality
Assess code maintainability:
- Is the code readable and clear?
- Are names descriptive?
- Is it properly structured?
- Are functions/methods focused?
- Is there unnecessary complexity?
Step 4: Review Security
Check for security issues:
- Are inputs validated?
- Is sensitive data protected?
- Are there SQL injection risks?
- Is authentication/authorization correct?
- Are dependencies secure?
Step 5: Review Performance
Look for performance issues:
- Are there unnecessary loops?
- Is database access optimized?
- Are there memory leaks?
- Is caching used appropriately?
- Are there N+1 query problems?
Step 6: Review Tests
Verify test coverage:
- Are there tests for new code?
- Do tests cover edge cases?
- Are tests meaningful?
- Do all tests pass?
- Is test coverage adequate?
Examples
Example 1: Functionality Review Checklist
## Functionality Review
### Requirements
- [ ] Code solves the stated problem
- [ ] All acceptance criteria are met
- [ ] Edge cases are handled
- [ ] Error cases are handled
- [ ] User input is validated
### Logic
- [ ] No logical errors or bugs
- [ ] Conditions are correct (no off-by-one errors)
- [ ] Loops terminate correctly
- [ ] Recursion has proper base cases
- [ ] State management is correct
### Error Handling
- [ ] Errors are caught appropriately
- [ ] Error messages are clear and helpful
- [ ] Errors don't expose sensitive information
- [ ] Failed operations are rolled back
- [ ] Logging is appropriate
### Example Issues to Catch:
**❌ Bad - Missing validation:**
\`\`\`javascript
function createUser(email, password) {
// No validation!
return db.users.create({ email, password });
}
\`\`\`
**✅ Good - Proper validation:**
\`\`\`javascript
function createUser(email, password) {
if (!email || !isValidEmail(email)) {
throw new Error('Invalid email address');
}
if (!password || password.length < 8) {
throw new Error('Password must be at least 8 characters');
}
return db.users.create({ email, password });
}
\`\`\`
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 448 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 49277182cdab
code-review-checklist is a skill published in the GitHub repository ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas (8 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 2,774 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to code-review-checklist, differing in 3 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
sdd-verify
Skill "sdd-verify" from Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai, covering execution role, language domain contract, activation contract, hard rules and decision gates.
branch-pr
Create Gentle AI pull requests with issue-first checks. Trigger: creating, opening, or preparing PRs for review.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.
cognitive-doc-design
Design docs that reduce cognitive load. Trigger: writing guides, READMEs, RFCs, onboarding, architecture, or review-facing docs.
systemic-issue-triage
Trigger: new issue, bug report, triage, backlog, issue flood, community report, root cause, dead-end, blocked user. Attack issues by root class, never one-by-one; fixes must shrink the system, not grow it.