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 agentmods add skills/rbah31/claude-code-workflow/reviewnpx skills add rbah31/claude-code-workflow --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rbah31/claude-code-workflowWrote 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/rbah31/claude-code-workflow/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rbah31/claude-code-workflow/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rbah31/claude-code-workflow/review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00082 | $0.01013 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00507 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
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 4d 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 — 118 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Phase
You are running the code review phase. Your job is to find issues the builder missed — you are a fresh pair of eyes.
Step 1 — Load context
Read the build output: find the latest tasks/sprints/sprint-*/build-output.md.
Read tasks/lessons.md — check for recurring issues to watch for.
Do NOT read the sprint plan in detail. You want a fresh perspective on the code, not the builder's reasoning.
Step 2 — Run the review
Core reviewers (always invoked)
Invoke these subagents on the modified files from the build output:
code-reviewer— quality, conventions, readability, maintainabilityqa-tester— test coverage, missing edge cases, test quality
Conditional reviewers
Check the files modified in build-output.md. Invoke additional reviewers
based on what was changed:
-
Files matching
.github/workflows/,Dockerfile,docker-compose,infrastructure/,deploy,Makefile,scripts/deploy,samconfig,template.yaml,terraform/,*.tf,CI,CD: → Also invokeops-engineerfor infrastructure review -
Files matching
billing,stripe,pricing,plan,upgrade,subscription,checkout,webhook: → Also invokebilling-auditorfor business logic review (if agent exists) -
Files matching
landing/,src/pages/,src/components/,i18n,embeds,cogs/,src/bot/: → Also invokeproduct-reviewerfor UX review (if agent exists)
If an optional agent doesn't exist in .claude/agents/, skip it silently.
If Agent Teams is available
Parallelize all reviewers (core + conditional) as teammates. If Agent Teams is not available: run subagents sequentially. Same result.
Step 3 — Consolidate findings
Merge all findings into a single review output, classified by severity:
tasks/sprints/sprint-XX/review-output.md
# Review Output — Sprint XX
## Summary
[1-2 sentences: overall quality assessment]
## Findings
### Critical (must fix before merge)
- **[file:line]** — [Reviewer] — [Description] — Suggestion: [fix]
### Major (should fix)
- **[file:line]** — [Reviewer] — [Description] — Suggestion: [fix]
### Minor (nice to fix)
- **[file:line]** — [Reviewer] — [Description]
### Suggestions (optional improvements)
- [Description]
## Test coverage assessment
[Are tests sufficient? What edge cases are missing?]
## Action items
- [ ] [Issue 1] — Priority: critical
- [ ] [Issue 2] — Priority: major
- ...
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 118 lines · 82 tokens per session scan A ab7ba94b4aa5
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository rbah31/claude-code-workflow (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 82 tokens to every session and 1,013 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
agent-code-analyzer
Agent skill for code-analyzer - invoke with $agent-code-analyzer.
agui-dotnet-sample-step
Add a GettingStarted sample Step (a Server/Client pair) to the AG-UI .NET SDK that demonstrates one protocol feature the way we want users to write it. USE FOR: adding a new samples/GettingStarted/StepNN Server+Client pair, wiring it into AGUI.slnx and the integration-test project, giving it a deterministic…
agui-dotnet-protobuf
Use the protobuf wire transport (instead of the default Server-Sent Events) for an AG-UI connection with the AG-UI .NET SDK — a compact binary event stream negotiated via the Accept header. USE FOR: making an AGUIChatClient prefer protobuf by wiring an AGUIEventStreamHandler with ProtobufEventStreamFormatter (then…
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"…
writing-specs
Use when a workflow step drafts or revises a spec artifact — a goal-and-requirements, an architecture, or a module SPEC — or when a workflow skill names it at such a step. The shared quality bar for specs — not a workflow, nothing to execute.
video-assets
Use when publishing, replacing, auditing, or linking cctop promo/demo video assets through GitHub Releases, especially the non-latest media-assets release. Trigger for requests like "upload the launch video", "add another video asset", "replace the README demo video", "where should this video live", "update…