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 ronronner02/codepilot-agent --skill spec-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ronronner02/codepilot-agentWrote 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/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/spec-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/spec-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/spec-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/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/spec-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ronronner02/codepilot-agent/spec-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 | $0.00048 | $0.27802 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.11121 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.05560 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.02780 |
Grade A, and why
spec-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 1mo 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 — 1,036 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Reviews code changes against intent, tests, standards, and risk lenses. When reviewer dispatch is explicitly authorized and callable, it uses selected personas and merges structured findings; otherwise it performs an honest inline report-only review with degraded coverage.
Workflow Contract Summary
- 输入： 当前分支、显式 base、远端 branch/PR，及可选 plan/task-pack 上下文。
- 输出： 默认 report-only 的结构化 findings、actionable queue、coverage、验证限制与 run artifact；
mode:agent返回 JSON。 - 硬出口： scope/base 不可解析、task context 漂移或越界、错误 checkout、必需独立覆盖不可用时不得给出完整 merge-ready 声明。
- 权威： source/diff/test/log 提供事实，reviewers 判断语义；review、local mutation、commit 与 landing 是四个独立授权面。
- 消费者： 人工 reviewer、
spec-work、caller-owned shipping/LFG 流程与后续 residual gate。
When to Use
- Before creating a PR
- After completing a task during iterative implementation
- When feedback is needed on any code changes
- Can be invoked standalone
- Can run inside larger workflows; use
mode:agentwhen the caller needs JSON instead of markdown tables
Scenario Capability
Follows docs/contracts/workflows/scenario-capability-matrix.md.
Overrides: high-risk
foreign-residual-workspace->blocked-action-required: stop before reviewer dispatch that depends on suspect local artifacts, checkout mutation, root-cause-like review claims, or PR-ready verdicts until the named cleanup/init action runs or the user explicitly accepts degraded evidence.- optional external-tool evidence unavailable ->
fallback-only: use bounded direct source, diff, test, log, and user-provided evidence; disclose missing reviewer/tool coverage and do not claim unconfirmed impact or full review coverage. non-git-build-workspacecoverage gaps ->partial: review only the selected repo/inspected build surfaces and directly inspect uncovered modules before claiming they are unaffected.
Argument Parsing
Parse the invocation arguments supplied by the current host for optional tokens. Strip only recognized tokens while preserving quoted paths, Windows drive paths, URLs, and the order of the remainder before interpreting it as a PR number, GitHub URL, or branch name.
What ships with it
31 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.
- references/action-class-rubric.md 1.5 KB
- references/apply-findings.md 2.0 KB
- references/cross-model-review.md 3.1 KB
- references/diff-scope.md 2.7 KB
- references/findings-schema.json 8.9 KB
- references/persona-catalog.md 6.4 KB
- references/personas/adversarial-reviewer.md 9.9 KB
- references/personas/agent-native-reviewer.md 9.2 KB
- references/personas/api-contract-reviewer.md 6.1 KB
- references/personas/correctness-reviewer.md 5.6 KB
- references/personas/data-migration-reviewer.md 4.9 KB
- references/personas/deployment-verification-agent.md 5.3 KB
- references/personas/frontend-quality-reviewer.md 2.9 KB
- references/personas/julik-frontend-races-reviewer.md 3.6 KB
- references/personas/learnings-researcher.md 16 KB
- references/personas/maintainability-reviewer.md 6.3 KB
- references/personas/performance-reviewer.md 3.5 KB
- references/personas/previous-comments-reviewer.md 3.3 KB
- references/personas/project-standards-reviewer.md 6.7 KB
- references/personas/reliability-reviewer.md 5.9 KB
- references/personas/security-reviewer.md 6.0 KB
- references/personas/swift-ios-reviewer.md 11 KB
- references/personas/testing-reviewer.md 7.5 KB
- references/review-output-template.md 15 KB
- references/subagent-template.md 25 KB
- references/validator-template.md 5.3 KB
- scripts/cross-model-adversarial-review.sh 8.3 KB runs code
- scripts/findings-mechanics.py 8.7 KB runs code
- scripts/peer-job-runner.py 86 KB runs code
- scripts/review-scope.py 9.9 KB runs code
- scripts/run-python.sh 774 B runs code
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 1,036 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A e6d1b0c08bb2
spec-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ronronner02/codepilot-agent (0 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 27,802 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
trace
Use when encountering bugs, test failures, runtime errors, broken builds, or "this doesn't work" reports. Systematic root-cause analysis before any patch — never blind-patches symptoms. Standalone, ends with a final-integration review of the fix. Trigger with /hyperflow:trace, "debug this", "find the root cause", "why…
verification-and-release
Design risk-based verification and judge release readiness from traceable evidence. Use when deciding what must be proven or whether an integrated change can ship.
pr-review
Review Cool Workflow pull requests or branch diffs. Use when Codex must inspect code changes for bugs, regressions, FreeBSD/POLA violations, missing tests, generated artifact drift, release-contract risk, or CI implications, and return findings first with file/line citations.
nazgul:heartbeat
Run one Nazgul automation-heartbeat tick — triages the work inbox and auto-starts the next objective if idle. Opt-in and default-off; fired by an optional Claude Code native scheduled agent (routine) or run by hand. Use when asked to "run a heartbeat tick", "check the inbox", or to test/debug the heartbeat.
code-review
Perform a structured code review of changes, checking for correctness, style, tests, and potential issues.
code-review
Reviews code for bugs, security issues, and best practices.