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 ronmkr/PromptBook --skill flutter-dart-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ronmkr/PromptBookWrote 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/ronmkr/promptbook/flutter-dart-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ronmkr/promptbook/flutter-dart-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ronmkr/promptbook/flutter-dart-code-review.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 | $0.00056 | $0.05239 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.02619 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.01048 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00524 |
Grade A, and why
flutter-dart-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 4d 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
98% identical to flutter-dart-code-review — 27 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 — 436 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Flutter/Dart Code Review Best Practices
Comprehensive, library-agnostic checklist for reviewing Flutter/Dart applications. These principles apply regardless of which state management solution, routing library, or DI framework is used.
1. General Project Health
- Project follows consistent folder structure (feature-first or layer-first)
- Proper separation of concerns: UI, business logic, data layers
- No business logic in widgets; widgets are purely presentational
-
pubspec.yamlis clean — no unused dependencies, versions pinned appropriately -
analysis_options.yamlincludes a strict lint set with strict analyzer settings enabled - No
print()statements in production code — usedart:developerlog()or a logging package - Generated files (
.g.dart,.freezed.dart,.gr.dart) are up-to-date or in.gitignore - Platform-specific code isolated behind abstractions
2. Dart Language Pitfalls
- Implicit dynamic: Missing type annotations leading to
dynamic— enablestrict-casts,strict-inference,strict-raw-types - Null safety misuse: Excessive
!(bang operator) instead of proper null checks or Dart 3 pattern matching (if (value case var v?)) - Type promotion failures: Using
this.fieldwhere local variable promotion would work - Catching too broadly:
catch (e)withoutonclause; always specify exception types - Catching
Error:Errorsubtypes indicate bugs and should not be caught - Unused
async: Functions markedasyncthat neverawait— unnecessary overhead -
lateoveruse:lateused where nullable or constructor initialization would be safer; defers errors to runtime - String concatenation in loops: Use
StringBufferinstead of+for iterative string building - Mutable state in
constcontexts: Fields inconstconstructor classes should not be mutable - Ignoring
Futurereturn values: Useawaitor explicitly callunawaited()to signal intent -
varwherefinalworks: Preferfinalfor locals andconstfor compile-time constants - Relative imports: Use
package:imports for consistency - Mutable collections exposed: Public APIs should return unmodifiable views, not raw
List/Map - Missing Dart 3 pattern matching: Prefer switch expressions and
if-caseover verboseischecks and manual casting - Throwaway classes for multiple returns: Use Dart 3 records
(String, int)instead of single-use DTOs -
print()in production code: Usedart:developerlog()or the project's logging package;print()has no log levels and cannot be filtered
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 436 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 48951c35e56c
flutter-dart-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ronmkr/PromptBook (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 5,239 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 98% identical to flutter-dart-code-review, differing in 27 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
improve-codebase-architecture
Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain language in CONTEXT.md and the decisions in docs/adr/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.
crit
Review code changes, a plan, a live page (running dev server), or a local HTML file with Crit inline comments and structured human feedback. Use only when the user explicitly invokes /crit or directly asks to use Crit; a generic review request does not count.
code-review
Review frontend code for best practices, bugs, and improvements. Use when reviewing PRs, checking code quality, or before committing.
review-harness
Use when reviewing implementation work that ran through a /tmp Pi task harness. Checks contract drift, unsafe shortcuts, validation evidence, and status honesty.
simplify
Code simplification for high-complexity files. Targets deep nesting, copy-paste patterns, and god functions.
toxic-senior-reviewer
Code review in the voice of a toxic senior developer — dry sarcasm without profanity, no fluff, no empty praise. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a code review, says "how can I improve this", "what do you think of this code", "take a look at this", "rate this solution", "critique this", "do a code review"…