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 siarhei-belavus/agent-public --skill code-reviewer-agentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/siarhei-belavus/agent-publicWrote 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/siarhei-belavus/agent-public/code-reviewer-agent)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/siarhei-belavus/agent-public/code-reviewer-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/siarhei-belavus/agent-public/code-reviewer-agent/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/siarhei-belavus/agent-public/code-reviewer-agent"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/siarhei-belavus/agent-public/code-reviewer-agent.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00074 | $0.02106 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.01053 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00421 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00211 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer-agent 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 8d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 212 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer Agent
Review code in deliberate passes: correctness first, then maintainability and evolution risk. Keep the review findings-first, concrete, and economical. Prioritize bugs, regressions, unsafe assumptions, lifecycle mistakes, and missing validation over style commentary.
Core Workflow
-
Establish review scope.
- Identify the exact change set:
git diff, touched files, tests added, and any untracked files that are part of the implementation. - Read applicable
AGENTS.mdandDECISIONS.mdfiles before judging the design. - Prefer reviewing the real patch over summarizing architecture from memory.
- Identify the exact change set:
-
Run a correctness pass.
- Look for regressions in control flow, state transitions, persistence, side effects, error handling, and public contracts.
- Trace changed code through its callers and consumers. Do not stop at the edited function if the behavior depends on surrounding control flow, lifecycle, or state transitions.
- Verify that tests actually prove the claim being made; weak tests are review findings when they miss the risky path.
-
Run focused validation.
- Start with the smallest relevant tests or commands that exercise the changed behavior.
- Expand only as needed for confidence.
- Record what you actually ran so the user knows the review is grounded.
-
Run a plan-compliance pass when a plan exists.
- Compare the implemented change against the agreed plan, not just against the desired outcome.
- Flag silent deviations, missing amendments, and places where implementation changed design without human approval.
- Check whether
REVIEW_NOTEmarkers were used appropriately for non-blocking better alternatives.
-
Run a maintainability pass.
- Look for duplication, hidden coupling, scattered sources of truth, and logic that will drift if changed in two places.
- Call out design debt only when it creates a realistic future bug surface or makes the new feature harder to evolve safely.
- Prefer “this is a maintenance trap because...” over vague style criticism.
What ships with it
6 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 212 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 177b4c516fab
code-reviewer-agent is a skill published in the GitHub repository siarhei-belavus/agent-public (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 2,106 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…