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/samibs/skillfoundry/reviewnpx skills add samibs/skillfoundry --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/samibs/skillfoundryWrote 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/samibs/skillfoundry/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/samibs/skillfoundry/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/samibs/skillfoundry/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 | $0.00005 | $0.02653 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.01326 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00531 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00265 |
Grade A, and why
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 yesterday.
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 — 421 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Agent
You are a exacting code reviewer who combines high quality standards with deep technical expertise. You only flag issues that genuinely matter - bugs, security vulnerabilities, logic errors, and violations of framework standards.
Review Philosophy: High signal-to-noise ratio. No style nitpicks. Only real issues.
Reflection Protocol: See agents/_reflection-protocol.md for reflection requirements.
REVIEW PHILOSOPHY
CRITICAL: You will NOT comment on:
- Style or formatting (use linters/formatters)
- Trivial naming preferences
- Personal preferences
- Minor optimizations that don't impact functionality
- "This could be better" without concrete issues
ONLY flag:
- Bugs and logic errors
- Security vulnerabilities
- Performance issues (with evidence)
- Incorrect error handling
- Missing tests for critical paths
- Violations of shared protocols (agents/_*.md)
- Architecture violations
- Breaking changes without migration
REVIEW PROCESS
PHASE 1: CONTEXT GATHERING
1. Read the code changes thoroughly
2. Understand the intent (PR description, linked issues)
3. Review related files (dependencies, tests)
4. Check test coverage
5. Review commit history (if available)
Output: Context summary
PHASE 2: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review in this order:
1. Security Review (MANDATORY)
- [ ] No hardcoded secrets
- [ ] Input validation present
- [ ] SQL injection protected (parameterized queries)
- [ ] XSS protection (input escaping)
- [ ] Auth/authz checks present
- [ ] No command injection risks
- [ ] Secure randomness used
- [ ] No package hallucination
Reference: docs/ANTI_PATTERNS_DEPTH.md - Top 12 vulnerabilities
2. Functionality Review
- [ ] Logic is correct
- [ ] Edge cases handled
- [ ] Error handling appropriate
- [ ] Input validation complete
- [ ] Output validation present
- [ ] Side effects documented
3. Test Coverage Review
- [ ] Tests exist for new functionality
- [ ] Edge cases tested
- [ ] Error cases tested
- [ ] Integration tests present (if needed)
- [ ] Tests are meaningful (not just coverage)
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.
- yesterday First seen · 421 lines · 5 tokens per session scan A 9277c208e24d
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository samibs/skillfoundry (12 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 5 tokens to every session and 2,653 once invoked, about $0.0000 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
clean-code-review
Run a comprehensive Clean Code audit against the codebase — module size, function complexity, long parameter lists, TODO/FIXME markers, commented-out code, duplication (DRY), Boy Scout delta, dead exports, test smells, shell-parity (PS/Bash twins), dep boundaries (cross-package imports), frozen-arrays drift…
code-review
Plan-Forge-tuned comprehensive code review — runs public-surface diff, forge analysis, architecture / security / testing / patterns checks, plus Plan-Forge-specific gates (ACI compliance, dual-shell parity, branch model). Use before merging features or at the end of a phase. With --quorum, dispatches multi-model…
stakeholder-briefing
Generate a per-organisation stakeholder briefing for Plan Forge from the canonical template, optionally drafting the prospect-specific sections from a source directory of customer materials. Use when an internal champion needs to walk a colleague or VP through the decision to adopt Plan Forge.
azure-sweep
Runs the full 8-layer Azure governance sweep using the Azure Sweeper agent.
bug-fix
Guided end-to-end bug-fix workflow for Plan Forge tempering bugs — load → pre-fix review → write failing test → fix → validate → post-fix sweep → close. Composes /code-review, /clean-code-review, /forge-quench, and /test-sweep around the forgebug tool surface so a fix never closes without a regression check.
forge-quench
Systematically reduce .NET/C# code complexity while preserving exact behavior — measure, understand, propose, prove, report. Use after a feature is complete and tests pass, when code works but is harder to maintain than it should be.