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 secondsky/claude-skills --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/secondsky/claude-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/secondsky/claude-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/secondsky/claude-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/secondsky/claude-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/secondsky/claude-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/secondsky/claude-skills/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk warn
- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 141 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00035 | $0.01131 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00452 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00226 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00113 |
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 — 94% identical, 19 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Guide proper code review practices emphasizing technical rigor, evidence-based claims, and verification over performative responses.
Overview
Code review requires three distinct practices:
- Receiving feedback - Technical evaluation over performative agreement
- Requesting reviews - Systematic review via code-reviewer subagent
- Verification gates - Evidence before any completion claims
Each practice has specific triggers and protocols detailed in reference files.
Core Principle
Technical correctness over social comfort. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.
When to Use This Skill
Receiving Feedback
Trigger when:
- Receiving code review comments from any source
- Feedback seems unclear or technically questionable
- Multiple review items need prioritization
- External reviewer lacks full context
- Suggestion conflicts with existing decisions
Reference: references/code-review-reception.md
Requesting Review
Trigger when:
- Completing tasks in subagent-driven development (after EACH task)
- Finishing major features or refactors
- Before merging to main branch
- Stuck and need fresh perspective
- After fixing complex bugs
Reference: references/requesting-code-review.md
Verification Gates
Trigger when:
- About to claim tests pass, build succeeds, or work is complete
- Before committing, pushing, or creating PRs
- Moving to next task
- Any statement suggesting success/completion
- Expressing satisfaction with work
Reference: references/verification-before-completion.md
Quick Decision Tree
SITUATION?
│
├─ Received feedback
│ ├─ Unclear items? → STOP, ask for clarification first
│ ├─ From human partner? → Understand, then implement
│ └─ From external reviewer? → Verify technically before implementing
│
├─ Completed work
│ ├─ Major feature/task? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
│ └─ Before merge? → Request code-reviewer subagent review
│
└─ About to claim status
├─ Have fresh verification? → State claim WITH evidence
└─ No fresh verification? → RUN verification command first
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 · 158 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 6265836eac27
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository secondsky/claude-skills (231 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,131 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
remember
Record why something is the way it is — a decision and its reasoning, a lesson that cost time, or a standing constraint. Use when the reasoning behind a choice would be expensive to reconstruct later.
review
Review a change with what this repository knows about it — who depends on the file, which tests cover it, what broke here before, and what the repo has written down. Use before approving a diff, opening a PR, or when asked to review.
decide
A reusable decision procedure, and a copyable prototype for the guard that encodes it — derive the population, set one threshold by what being wrong costs, name the offender, and break it once to prove it can fail. Use when writing a check, guard, gate or validation of any kind, or when deciding whether something is…
bootstrap
Set up chamnan in this repository for the first time — build the architecture index, measure how well the code describes itself, fill in missing file comments, and record a baseline. Run once per repo.
milestone
Record a change that reshaped the repository — what moved, why it was worth doing, and which areas it touched. Use after a migration, a rewrite, or a decision that changed how part of the system works.
resume
Write down where this stretch of work stopped, so the next session continues instead of restarting. Use at the end of a working session, or when handing the repository to someone else.