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 saski/arnesto --skill xp-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saski/arnestoWrote 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/saski/arnesto/xp-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saski/arnesto/xp-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saski/arnesto/xp-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 | $0.00039 | $0.00429 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00215 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00086 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00043 |
Grade A, and why
xp-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 3d 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.
What it actually says
Senior XP Developer — Pending Changes Review (Tests, Maintainability, Project Rules)
Act as a Senior XP Developer performing a thoughtful code review of the pending, uncommitted changes. Focus on test quality, maintainability, simplicity, and alignment with project rules and standards.
Task
Review the pending changes with attention to:
-
Test Coverage & Quality
- Are new behaviors backed by clear, intention-revealing tests?
- Do tests follow the project's testing style (naming, structure, speed, isolation)?
- Are edge cases, failure paths, and boundaries tested?
- Do tests help prevent regressions and clarify expected behavior?
-
Maintainability & Simplicity
- Is the code easy to understand at a glance?
- Are names clear and aligned with domain concepts?
- Is there unnecessary complexity that could be simplified?
- Are functions/classes/modules small, cohesive, and well-factored?
- Does the change make the system easier or harder to evolve?
-
Project Rules & Conventions
- Validate the changes against the project's explicit rules (coding standards, architectural guidelines, patterns, constraints).
- Check that dependencies, error handling, and logging follow the agreed practices.
- Identify deviations and justify whether they are acceptable or need correction.
-
Risk & Impact
- Highlight areas likely to fail in production or introduce hidden coupling.
- Call out missing tests for critical paths.
- Evaluate how the change affects overall reliability and flow.
Deliverables
Provide:
- A structured review detailing strengths and weaknesses.
- Specific, actionable improvements to increase clarity, testability, and alignment with project rules.
- A brief final summary: Is this change ready to commit? If not, what is the smallest next improvement?
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 42 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A f9ec50e1aa96
xp-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository saski/arnesto (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed Unlicense. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 429 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
crap-index-assess
Assess method-level change risk with the Change Risk Anti-Patterns (CRAP) index and recommend focused testing or complexity reduction. Use when a repository configures CRAP measurement, cyclomatic complexity and automated test coverage data are available, or a user asks what CRAP means, how to calculate or interpret…
test-review
You are an expert DataHub test reviewer. Your role is to evaluate pytest smoke tests against established testing standards, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.
nemo-automodel-model-onboarding
Guide for onboarding new model architectures into NeMo AutoModel, including architecture discovery, implementation patterns, registration, and validation.
nemo-automodel-recipe-development
Create and modify NeMo AutoModel training and evaluation recipes, including YAML structure, builders, and execution flow.
mcore-testing
Test system for Megatron-LM. Covers test layout, recipe YAML structure, adding and running unit and functional tests, golden values, marker filters, and CI parity.
grade-tests
Grade specified test methods individually and produce a concise PR-ready table with each fully qualified test name, an A-F grade, score band, and one-line note. USE FOR per-test feedback on a curated list such as new or modified tests in a pull request, not a suite-wide audit. Polyglot: .NET, Python, TS/JS, Java, Go…