Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to rios0rios0/guide. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rios0rios0/guide/main/.github/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rios0rios0/guideWrote 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/rios0rios0/guide/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rios0rios0/guide/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rios0rios0/guide/code-review/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/rios0rios0/guide/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rios0rios0/guide/code-review.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 | $0.00071 | $0.03114 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.01246 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00623 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00311 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 7d 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
88% identical to code-review — 81 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 — 202 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code review — guide
guide is the canonical standards documentation: it publishes to the GitHub wiki and generates rule files for Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and GitHub Copilot onto the generated branch. Everything every other repository is reviewed against starts here, so an ambiguous sentence propagates as a misapplied rule everywhere.
When to use this skill
Use it whenever you are asked to review a pull request, a diff, a branch, or staged changes in this repository — and before opening a pull request of your own, as a self-check. It is a review skill: it produces findings, not commits.
Source of truth
The canonical engineering standards live in the rios0rios0/guide wiki. This file is a repo-tailored index into that guide plus the rules that only apply here. Precedence, highest first:
- This repository's
.github/copilot-instructions.md,CLAUDE.md, andCONTRIBUTING.md— they describe this codebase and its load-bearing invariants. - The rios0rios0/guide wiki — the shared standard.
- General language idiom.
When the guide and a general convention disagree, the guide wins. When this file and the guide disagree, the guide wins and this file should be corrected in the same pull request.
Guide pages that apply here
| Topic | Page |
|---|---|
YAML Conventions — .yaml, single quotes, unquoted scalars |
YAML |
| Git Flow — branches, commits, SemVer, breaking changes | Git-Flow |
| Documentation & Change Control — changelog and docs discipline | Documentation-&-Change-Control |
| CHANGELOG Formatting — capitalisation and backticks | CHANGELOG-Formatting |
| Security — OWASP checklist, secret hygiene, SAST | Security |
| CI & CD — pipeline stages and the local quality gates | CI-&-CD |
| Code Style — baseline naming and the operations vocabulary | Code-Style |
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.
- 7d ago Changed · +1 lines 5b967ac422cf
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 7c8b41de3aba
- 1mo ago Changed · +6 lines 34dfb9bed059
- 1mo ago First seen · 194 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A bb3c8a3e3132
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository rios0rios0/guide (4 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 3,114 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to code-review, differing in 81 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
otto-pr-review-loop
Run Polly and OCR on a PR until all findings settle.
meta-codereview-current-diff
Read the current uncommitted diff, run three independent reviewers (safety + tests-coverage + style) in parallel, then arbitrate a single BLOCK / BLOCKWITHOVERRIDE / PASSWITHNOTES verdict. Use before commit when you want a multi-perspective second-opinion instead of a single-reviewer agent loop.
codebase-review
Review an entire codebase for architecture, engineering health, and exploitable risk; generate a prioritized remediation plan, an evidence-anchored system knowledge document, or both.
review-ticket
Review a ticket or PR through focused specialist lenses: scope, architecture, security, tests, AC coverage, and PR metadata.
deep-review
Parallel competency-based code review. Launches independent Agent reviewers per competency (security, performance, architecture, database, concurrency, error-handling, frontend, testing), each with a focused checklist and isolated context. Synthesizes findings into unified report with FIX/DEFER/ACCEPT triage. Use…
factory-gitlab-rereview
Re-review a GitLab merge request after new commits and reconcile the previous review.