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/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-code-reviewnpx skills add robertbarclayy/conducty --skill conducty-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/robertbarclayy/conductyWrote 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/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/robertbarclayy/conducty/conducty-code-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 5.1 | $0.00121 | $0.02011 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00060 | $0.01006 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00402 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00201 |
Grade A, and why
conducty-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 206 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Conducty Code Review — Whole-Branch Review
The in-cycle reviewers in [[conducty-execute]] (spec-review, full-review) verify each prompt against its own acceptance criteria. They do not see the branch as a unit. conducty-code-review does: it reads the diff between the branch and its base, looks at the cumulative change as a single artifact, and produces a holistic review note in the vault.
[!important] Read [[conducty-obsidian]] first Output goes to the vault as
Code Reviews/Code Review YYYY-MM-DD HHmm.md, linked from the plan note that produced the changes.
When to Use
- After a plan finishes and the changes are about to ship
- Before [[conducty-ship]] — code-review is a precondition for ship
- On request: "review my changes", "review this PR", "is this branch ready"
- On a PR URL — fetch the diff via
gh pr diff <id>and review
Skip when:
- Plan is still mid-execution (use checkpoint instead)
- Single-prompt review is sufficient — that's
spec-review/full-reviewinside [[conducty-execute]]
Workflow
Step 1: Establish the Diff
# Local branch vs main
git diff $(git merge-base HEAD main)..HEAD
# Or for a PR
gh pr diff <pr-number>
Record:
- Base ref + tip ref + commit count
- Files changed (count + list)
- Lines added/removed
- The active plan note(s) that produced these changes (read from
[[Plans Index]]— pick plans whose execution window matches the commit range)
If the diff is huge (>1000 lines or >40 files), warn the user and ask whether to slice the review (per-module, per-commit, or per-prompt).
Step 2: Anchor in the Plan(s)
Read the plan note(s) that produced the changes. Note:
- The acceptance criteria for each prompt
- The no-go zones declared
- Any failure patterns logged during execution
The diff should match the plan. Anything in the diff not in the plan is scope creep and gets flagged.
Step 3: Walk the Diff With Five Lenses
Apply each lens to the full diff, not file-by-file. Each lens produces findings.
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 First seen · 206 lines · 121 tokens per session scan A 86a150c8b7d6
conducty-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository robertbarclayy/conducty (176 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 121 tokens to every session and 2,011 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.