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 rockyflux/yq-workflow --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rockyflux/yq-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/rockyflux/yq-workflow/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rockyflux/yq-workflow/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rockyflux/yq-workflow/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00047 | $0.00723 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00362 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00145 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00072 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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
100% identical to code-reviewer — 0 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 — 66 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
This skill guides the agent in conducting professional and thorough code reviews for both local development and remote Pull Requests.
Workflow
1. Determine Review Target
- Remote PR: If the user provides a PR number or URL (e.g., "Review PR #123"), target that remote PR.
- Local Changes: If no specific PR is mentioned, or if the user asks to "review my changes", target the current local file system states (staged and unstaged changes).
2. Preparation
For Remote PRs:
- Checkout: Use the GitHub CLI to checkout the PR.
gh pr checkout <PR_NUMBER> - Preflight: Execute the project's standard verification suite to catch automated failures early.
npm run preflight - Context: Read the PR description and any existing comments to understand the goal and history.
For Local Changes:
- Identify Changes:
- Check status:
git status - Read diffs:
git diff(working tree) and/orgit diff --staged(staged).
- Check status:
- Preflight (Optional): If the changes are substantial, ask the user if they want to run
npm run preflightbefore reviewing.
3. In-Depth Analysis
Analyze the code changes based on the following pillars:
- Correctness: Does the code achieve its stated purpose without bugs or logical errors?
- Maintainability: Is the code clean, well-structured, and easy to understand and modify in the future? Consider factors like code clarity, modularity, and adherence to established design patterns.
- Readability: Is the code well-commented (where necessary) and consistently formatted according to our project's coding style guidelines?
- Efficiency: Are there any obvious performance bottlenecks or resource inefficiencies introduced by the changes?
- Security: Are there any potential security vulnerabilities or insecure coding practices?
- Edge Cases and Error Handling: Does the code appropriately handle edge cases and potential errors?
- Testability: Is the new or modified code adequately covered by tests (even if preflight checks pass)? Suggest additional test cases that would improve coverage or robustness.
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 · 66 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A d2bd763e7cfa
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository rockyflux/yq-workflow (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 723 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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.