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 rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro --skill code-review-expertgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rocky2431/ultra-builder-proWrote 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/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/code-review-expert)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/code-review-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/code-review-expert/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/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/code-review-expert"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro/code-review-expert.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 | $0.00032 | $0.00932 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00466 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-expert 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 9d 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 — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Expert Checklists
Provides structured review workflow and reference checklists for the code-reviewer agent.
Severity Levels
| Level | Name | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | Critical | Security vulnerability, data loss risk, correctness bug | Must block merge |
| P1 | High | Logic error, significant SOLID violation, performance regression | Should fix before merge |
| P2 | Medium | Code smell, maintainability concern, minor SOLID violation | Fix in this PR or create follow-up |
| P3 | Low | Style, naming, minor suggestion | Optional improvement |
Review Workflow
Step 1: Preflight Context
- Run
git status -sb,git diff --stat, andgit diffto scope changes - Use
git diff --cachedto include staged changes - If needed, use Grep to find related modules, usages, and contracts
Edge cases:
- No changes: Inform user, ask if they want to review staged changes or a specific commit range
- Large diff (>500 lines): Summarize by file first, then review in batches by module/feature area
- Mixed concerns: Group findings by logical feature, not just file order
Step 2: SOLID + Architecture Smells
Load references/solid-checklist.md for detailed prompts.
Look for SRP/OCP/LSP/ISP/DIP violations and common code smells. When proposing refactor, explain why it improves cohesion/coupling. Non-trivial refactors get incremental plans, not large rewrites.
Step 3: Removal Candidates
Load references/removal-plan.md for template.
Identify unused, redundant, or feature-flagged-off code. Distinguish safe delete now vs defer with plan. Provide follow-up steps with concrete checkpoints.
Step 4: Security and Reliability
Load references/security-checklist.md for coverage.
Check injection, auth gaps, secrets, race conditions, crypto, supply chain. Call out both exploitability and impact.
Step 5: Code Quality
Load references/code-quality-checklist.md for coverage.
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 119 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A a2167d2f7738
code-review-expert is a skill published in the GitHub repository rocky2431/ultra-builder-pro (11 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 932 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…