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 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.01110 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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.
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.
- 1mo 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 (11 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 2,774 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
ponytail-lazy-senior-dev
Applies the "lazy senior developer" mindset. Use this skill whenever generating, modifying, reviewing code, or fixing bugs to prioritize code reuse, minimalism, YAGNI principles, and root-cause fixes. Also use whenever the user says "ponytail", "be lazy", "lazy mode", "simplest solution", "minimal solution", "yagni"…
tech-lead/code-review
A checklist-based method for examining code for correctness, security, performance, clarity, and ease of maintenance.
adr
Create and manage Architecture Decision Records. Documents significant technical decisions with context, alternatives, and consequences. Also supports evaluate (assess proposals) and design (system design) modes.
deploy-checklist
Pre-deployment verification checklist. Generates customized checklists based on tech-stack with rollback triggers. Auto-invoked by /draft:upload.
status
Display current progress of Draft tracks and active tasks. Shows phases, completion percentages, and blocked items.
feedback
Fetch unresolved review comments on a GitHub PR (Copilot and human), verify against the code, classify Address / Skip / Optional / Discuss. Use when asked to triage reviewer feedback, which comments to actually fix, or to sort signal from noise on a PR. Don't use to reply to or resolve threads, or to write a fresh…