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 yq-code-reviewgit 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/yq-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rockyflux/yq-workflow/yq-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rockyflux/yq-workflow/yq-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/rockyflux/yq-workflow/yq-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rockyflux/yq-workflow/yq-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 | $0.00032 | $0.01208 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00604 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
yq-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 — 152 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<codex_skill_adapter>
A. Skill Invocation
- This skill is invoked by mentioning
yq-code-review. - Treat all text after invocation as review args.
- If no args are present, use default review behavior.
B. Argument Parsing
- First positional argument: review target/scope hint.
- Optional flags:
--depth=quick|standard|deep--files=file1,file2,...
C. Execution Style
- Prefer deterministic, scope-first review flow.
- If explicit scope is missing, fallback to changed files.
- If no files resolved, return
No review scopewith next action guidance. </codex_skill_adapter>
Use reviewer-style scrutiny with severity-classified findings:
S0-Blocker: correctness/security release blockerS1-High: high regression or reliability riskS2-Medium: maintainability/testability degradationS3-Low: minor quality improvements
Arguments:
- Target scope (required): review target identifier (task/PR/commit range/freeform scope)
--depth=quick|standard|deep(optional, defaultstandard)- quick: fast pattern scan (~2 min)
- standard: per-file semantic review (~5-15 min)
- deep: cross-file call-chain/data-flow review (~15-30 min)
--files=file1,file2,...(optional): explicit file list override (highest precedence)
Output: CODE-REVIEW.md (or task-scoped review note) + inline summary of findings and next steps.
Optional flags:
--depth=VALUE: quick|standard|deep--files=file1,file2,...: explicit review scope override
Scope resolution order:
--filesexplicit list- task/summary-declared changed files
- git changed files fallback (staged + unstaged)
If scope is empty after resolution, return No review scope and request explicit targets.
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 · 152 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A ca9b40e4f11e
yq-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository rockyflux/yq-workflow (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,208 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
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.
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…