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 seb1n/awesome-ai-agent-skills --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/seb1n/awesome-ai-agent-skillsWrote 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/seb1n/awesome-ai-agent-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/seb1n/awesome-ai-agent-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/seb1n/awesome-ai-agent-skills/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/seb1n/awesome-ai-agent-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/seb1n/awesome-ai-agent-skills/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 | $0.02140 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00856 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00428 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00214 |
Grade A, and why
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
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- Code Review — 100% identical, 4 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 184 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
This skill enables an AI agent to conduct a structured, comprehensive code review on a source file, a set of changes, or a pull request. The agent examines the code across multiple quality dimensions — correctness, security, performance, readability, and maintainability — and produces a detailed review report with actionable feedback tied to specific lines of code.
Workflow
-
Parse the input and establish context. Determine whether the input is a single file, a directory, or a pull request diff. If it is a pull request, fetch the diff and identify the base branch so that only the changed lines are reviewed. Read any related configuration files (linter configs, style guides, type definitions) to calibrate the review against the project's standards.
-
Understand the intent of the change. Read commit messages, PR descriptions, and surrounding code to understand what the author intended. This prevents false positives — a reviewer must know the goal before judging whether the code achieves it. Summarize the change in one sentence before proceeding.
-
Check for correctness and bugs. Walk through every changed function and trace the data flow. Look for null or undefined dereferences, off-by-one errors, incorrect boolean logic, unhandled error paths, race conditions in concurrent code, and resource leaks (open files, database connections, unreleased locks). Verify that edge cases — empty inputs, maximum values, unexpected types — are handled.
-
Evaluate security. Scan for common vulnerability patterns: unsanitized user input (SQL injection, XSS), hardcoded secrets or credentials, insecure cryptographic usage, overly permissive file or network access, and missing authentication or authorization checks. Flag any dependency additions and check for known CVEs.
-
Assess performance and scalability. Identify algorithmic complexity issues (nested loops over large collections, repeated database queries inside loops, unbounded memory growth). Check for unnecessary allocations, missing caching opportunities, and blocking calls in async contexts. Consider the expected data volume and whether the code will scale.
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 · 184 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 6d707003c072
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository seb1n/awesome-ai-agent-skills (229 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 2,140 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
Run an extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth. Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review, thermonuclear review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability review.
cross-model-review
A second-opinion code review that asks a different AI model to independently inspect a change, then compares both reviews. It focuses on logic, security, consistency, and omissions.
refactor-advisor
A code review helper that finds common design and maintenance problems in a codebase and suggests ways to restructure the code.
sprr
Single PR reviewer for awesome-quant. Use when the user asks to review, validate, comment on, label, close, or merge one specific pull request that adds README.md entries. Triggers include "sprr", "review PR", "check PR", and "validate contribution".
ln-42-dependency-upgrader
Upgrades dependencies in reversible batches with version-specific compatibility and regression checks.
ln-53-documentation-auditor
Audits documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only.