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 romiluz13/cc10x --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/romiluz13/cc10xWrote 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/romiluz13/cc10x/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/romiluz13/cc10x/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/romiluz13/cc10x/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/romiluz13/cc10x/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/romiluz13/cc10x/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00053 | $0.03097 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.01239 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00619 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00310 |
Grade A, and why
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 11d 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 — 193 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review (Adversarial + Receiving)
Reference Files
Read only what's needed:
references/review-order-and-checkpoints.md— review order, checkpoint discipline; load when starting a review that spans multiple files or needs a checkpointed passreferences/code-review-heuristics.md— heuristics, pattern recognition, false-positive prevention; load when the diff is non-trivial or before reporting zero findings (Zero-Finding Halt re-scan)references/security-review-checklist.md— security review checklist; load whenever the diff touches auth, input handling, network, secrets, or data access
Run ADVERSARIAL when producing findings on a diff; run RECEIVING when acting on findings someone else produced. The Code Smells catalog, AI-Generated Anti-Patterns, Metric Honesty Rule, and Deferred Findings handling below apply in both modes.
Mode: ADVERSARIAL REVIEW
Only report issues with confidence ≥80 — below that, a finding is more likely noise than signal, and noise burns the fix loop's time and trust. Do not inflate a score to smuggle a hunch through; a genuine security hunch goes to the Summary as an open question (see the Security exception under Confidence Scoring). Every finding states category, impact, and why it matters. Present a recommendation, not a menu. Be opinionated.
Signal quality rule: One finding with file:line evidence and a fix is worth more than ten generic observations. Never report a pattern without showing where it lives.
Two-Stage Review
Stage 1: Spec Compliance — Does the code do what the plan/spec asked? Check: phase exit criteria met, interfaces match plan's Consumes/Produces, no scope drift, no missing scenarios.
Stage 2: Code Quality — Is the code well-built? Check: correctness, performance, security, clarity, test coverage.
One-fact rule: On a consequential change, find the one fact the change is safe because of — a caller invariant, a lifecycle assumption, a data-shape contract at a boundary — and spend the review proving that fact instead of enumerating maybes. The fact is usually one a breakage grep will not surface. If you cannot prove it, the change is unreviewed; the maybes you listed do not change that.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 11d ago Changed 42bc7228d9d1
- 1mo ago Changed · +17 lines b358c4f087bd
- 1mo ago First seen · 176 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 9c9ddb0a34c8
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository romiluz13/cc10x (165 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 3,097 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
issue-analyze
GitHub Issue and PR review thread deep analysis with Codex blind verdict. Use when: analyzing issue root cause, classifying problems, investigation planning, triaging PR review comments for actionability. Not for: fixing bugs (use bug-fix), code exploration (use code-explore). Output: classified analysis + verdict…
load-pr-review
Load GitHub PR review comments into AI session — analyze, triage, plan. Default: analysis-only (no auto-fix). Use when: reviewing PR feedback, planning fixes, addressing review comments, replying to reviewers. Not for: creating reviews (use codex-review-fast), creating PRs (use create-pr), viewing PR status (use…
best-practices
Industry best practices conformance audit with mandatory adversarial debate. Produces audit artifact: verdict (OK/WARN/FAIL) + gap roadmap + debate proof. Use when: auditing current implementation against industry standards, checking compliance with best practices, benchmarking implementation quality, verifying a…
pre-pr-audit
Pre-PR confidence audit with 5-dimension scoring. Use when: final check before commit/push/PR, evaluating PR readiness, assessing test quality + risk + coverage holistically. Triggers: pre-pr, readiness check, confidence audit, final verification, ready to PR, how confident. Not for: code review (use…
review-spec
Review technical spec documents from completeness, feasibility, risk, and code consistency perspectives.
codex-cli-review
Code review via Codex CLI with full disk access. Use when: deep review needing full codebase read, uncommitted change review. Not for: quick diff review (use codex-code-review), doc review (use doc-review). Output: severity-grouped findings + merge gate.