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/romiluz13/cc-teams/code-review-patternsnpx skills add romiluz13/cc-teams --skill code-review-patternsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/romiluz13/cc-teamsWhat 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 | $0.00019 | $0.03721 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01861 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00744 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00372 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-patterns 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 2d 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 — 460 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Patterns
Overview
Code reviews catch bugs before they ship. But reviewing code quality before functionality is backwards.
Core principle: First verify it works, THEN verify it's good.
Posture: Be adversarial and opinionated. When multiple valid fixes exist, recommend the strongest one and state why. Present a recommendation, not a menu.
Feedback Form
For every finding:
- state what is wrong before stating the fix
- state why it matters before discussing implementation preference
- reference concrete file:line evidence
- if the same pattern appears in multiple places, report it once with all affected locations
- avoid personal framing like "you did X"; describe code behavior instead
Adversarial posture: Assume issues may exist until evidence proves otherwise. Your job is not to confirm cleanliness by default. Your job is to surface real problems with concrete evidence.
Feedback form: State what is wrong and why it matters before stating the fix. Reference file and line. If a pattern recurs in multiple locations, report it once with all affected locations.
Signal Quality Rule
Flag ONLY when certain. False positives erode trust and waste remediation cycles.
| Flag | Do NOT Flag |
|---|---|
| Will fail to compile/parse (syntax, type, import errors) | Style preferences not in project guidelines |
| Logic error producing wrong results for all inputs | Potential issues dependent on specific inputs/state |
| Clear guideline violation (quote the exact rule) | Subjective improvements or nitpicks |
Zero-Finding Gate
If a review pass produces zero findings:
- verify you actually read the changed files, not just filenames or summaries
- provide at least one specific positive assertion with file:line evidence
- do not claim high-confidence cleanliness without evidence-backed positives
- avoid verdict softeners like "looks fine", "probably safe", or "LGTM" without explanation
Quick Review Checklist (Reference Pattern)
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 460 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 2f8055a3aebf
code-review-patterns is a skill published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc-teams (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 3,721 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…