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 sangrokjung/claude-forge --skill frontend-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sangrokjung/claude-forgeWrote 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/sangrokjung/claude-forge/frontend-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sangrokjung/claude-forge/frontend-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sangrokjung/claude-forge/frontend-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/sangrokjung/claude-forge/frontend-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sangrokjung/claude-forge/frontend-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 | $0.00042 | $0.00610 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00244 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
frontend-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.
Copies of this mod
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- frontend-code-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- frontend-code-review — 92% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Frontend Code Review
Intent
Use this skill whenever the user asks to review frontend code (especially .tsx, .ts, or .js files). Support two review modes:
- Pending-change review – inspect staged/working-tree files slated for commit and flag checklist violations before submission.
- File-targeted review – review the specific file(s) the user names and report the relevant checklist findings.
Stick to the checklist below for every applicable file and mode.
Checklist
See references/code-quality.md, references/performance.md, references/business-logic.md for the living checklist split by category—treat it as the canonical set of rules to follow.
Flag each rule violation with urgency metadata so future reviewers can prioritize fixes.
Review Process
- Open the relevant component/module. Gather lines that relate to class names, React Flow hooks, prop memoization, and styling.
- For each rule in the review point, note where the code deviates and capture a representative snippet.
- Compose the review section per the template below. Group violations first by Urgent flag, then by category order (Code Quality, Performance, Business Logic).
Required output
When invoked, the response must exactly follow one of the two templates:
Template A (any findings)
# Code review
Found <N> urgent issues need to be fixed:
## 1 <brief description of bug>
FilePath: <path> line <line>
<relevant code snippet or pointer>
### Suggested fix
<brief description of suggested fix>
---
... (repeat for each urgent issue) ...
Found <M> suggestions for improvement:
## 1 <brief description of suggestion>
FilePath: <path> line <line>
<relevant code snippet or pointer>
### Suggested fix
<brief description of suggested fix>
---
... (repeat for each suggestion) ...
If there are no urgent issues, omit that section. If there are no suggestions, omit that section.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 74 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A f4fefe4db680
frontend-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository sangrokjung/claude-forge (862 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 610 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
generic-react-code-reviewer
Review React/TypeScript code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, GPU-accelerated animations, WCAG AA accessibility, bundle size limits, and surgical simplicity. Use when completing features, before commits, or…
go-code-reviewer
Review Go code with a defect-first approach using repository policy (constitution.md first, then AGENTS.md fallback). Use for code review, PR review, quality checks, risk analysis, and regression detection.
go-review-lead
Orchestrate a comprehensive Go code review by triaging code changes, dispatching vertical review skills (security, concurrency, error, logic, performance, quality, test, observability) as parallel agents, then consolidating results into a unified report. Use for full Go PR review or comprehensive code review. Replaces…
security-review
A code-security review guide that checks code changes, pull requests, or services for risks an attacker could exploit.
go-concurrency-review
Review Go code for concurrency safety and goroutine lifecycle issues including race conditions, deadlocks, goroutine leaks, mutex misuse, and context propagation. Trigger when code contains go func, channels, sync primitives, WaitGroup, errgroup, or goroutine lifecycle management. Use for concurrency-focused review of…
go-error-review
Review Go code for error handling correctness, nil safety, and failure-path integrity including ignored errors, missing wrapping, panic misuse, SQL/HTTP resource lifecycle, and transaction patterns. Trigger when code contains error returns, panic calls, sql.Rows, transactions, HTTP client/server code, or nil-sensitive…