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/rengwu/wayfinder-maps/review-codenpx skills add rengwu/wayfinder-maps --skill review-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rengwu/wayfinder-mapsWrote 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/rengwu/wayfinder-maps/review-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rengwu/wayfinder-maps/review-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rengwu/wayfinder-maps/review-code.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 5.1 | $0.00078 | $0.01649 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00825 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00330 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00165 |
Grade A, and why
review-code 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 6d 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
78% identical to code-review — 78 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 — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Two-axis review of the diff between HEAD and a fixed point the user supplies:
- Standards — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
- Spec — does the code faithfully implement the originating spec / PRD?
The two axes are reviewed in isolation so they don't pollute each other, then aggregated side by side.
Process
1. Pin the fixed point
Whatever the user said is the fixed point — a commit SHA, branch name, tag, main, HEAD~5, etc. If they didn't specify one, ask for it.
Capture the diff command once: git diff <fixed-point>...HEAD (three-dot, so the comparison is against the merge-base). Also note the list of commits via git log <fixed-point>..HEAD --oneline.
Before going further, confirm the fixed point resolves (git rev-parse <fixed-point>) and the diff is non-empty. A bad ref or empty diff should fail here — not inside the two reviews.
2. Identify the spec source
Look for the originating spec, in this order:
- A path the user passed as an argument.
- A spec under
.plan/— typically.plan/<slug>/spec.md, matching the branch name or feature. - A PRD/spec file elsewhere in the repo (
docs/,specs/, or similar) matching the branch name or feature. - Issue references in the commit messages (
#123,Closes #45, etc.) — if the environment has a way to fetch them (e.g. the repo host's CLI), fetch the referenced issue. - If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the Spec axis will skip and report "no spec available".
3. Identify the standards sources
Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as CODING_STANDARDS.md or CONTRIBUTING.md.
On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the smell baseline below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (Refactoring, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing. Three rules bind it:
- The repo overrides. A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
- The language's paradigm applies. Skip smells that don't fit the language being reviewed — e.g. Refused Bequest in a language without inheritance, Feature Envy where there are no objects to envy.
- Always a judgement call. Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 94 lines · 78 tokens per session scan A 6a8cedcdf17e
review-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository rengwu/wayfinder-maps (118 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 78 tokens to every session and 1,649 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 78% identical to code-review, differing in 78 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
dd-code-generation
Use pup CLI for immediate Datadog operations or generate code for integration into applications.
drt-analyze
Analyze DRT cluster health for a given time range. Reconstructs the operations timeline, checks CockroachDB metrics (availability, latency, storage, changefeeds, jobs, goroutines, admission control, LSM, KV prober) and logs for anomalies, correlates findings with disruptive operations to distinguish expected…
redux-to-swr
Migrate React components from Redux + Saga to SWR hooks. Use when converting data fetching from Redux store (reducers, sagas, selectors, connect HOC) to SWR-based hooks in CockroachDB DB Console or cluster-ui.
prune-npm-overrides
Audit the pnpm overrides a repo already carries, remove the ones upstream has since fixed, and require a justification comment on every one that stays. The counterpart to fix-npm-vulnerability. Use when asked to check, clean up, or prune the overrides, or when an override's tracking issue comes up for review.
mma-investigator
Expert system for investigating MMA (Multi-Metric Allocator) behavior on CockroachDB clusters. Helps oncall engineers diagnose load imbalances, understand rebalancing decisions, and identify why MMA did or didn't act.
engflow-artifacts
Use when downloading test logs, artifacts, or outputs.zip from EngFlow build invocations. Use when investigating CockroachDB CI test failures hosted on mesolite.cluster.engflow.com.