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 sikadi233-hub/mc-dev --skill mc-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sikadi233-hub/mc-devWrote 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/sikadi233-hub/mc-dev/mc-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sikadi233-hub/mc-dev/mc-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sikadi233-hub/mc-dev/mc-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/sikadi233-hub/mc-dev/mc-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sikadi233-hub/mc-dev/mc-review.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 | $0.00080 | $0.01047 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.00524 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00209 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
mc-review scanned grade A with 1 finding 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 9d 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.
Reads agent configuration directorieslowAgent snooping
.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/ hold keys, settings and other credentials a mod has no legitimate need for.
Add this to `~/.claude/settings.json` (or the project `.claude/settings.json`) to run a quick review after each Java/JSON edit: Downgraded: this mod is about security review, or the phrase is quoted, so it is likely naming the pattern rather than instructing it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
mc-review
Statically review mod/plugin code, surface potential issues, and give concrete fixes.
How to trigger
Manual:
/mc-review— review all code in the current project/mc-review --quick— only recently modified files/mc-review --perf— performance checks only
Automatic (Hook): configure a PostToolUse hook so that when Write/Edit touches .java or .json files, a quick review runs and reports findings. See "Hook setup" below.
Review dimensions
4.0 Version adaptation (highest priority)
- Is the target version
<= 1.20.4or>= 1.20.5? Does the API usage match? - Does
>= 1.20.5code still use removed old-NBT APIs likestack.getTag()/stack.getOrCreateTag()? - Is the Data Component registration done correctly?
-
>= 1.21.4: doescustom_model_datause the new list structure instead of a single int? -
>= 1.21.4: any misuse of the removedItemColors/BuiltinItemRenderer? -
>= 1.21.4: is Pick Block moved to the server-side API? - Are enchantment / damage / durability handled via Data Components rather than raw NBT?
- Cross-version: if multiple versions are supported, are there version branches?
4.1 Correctness
- API calls match the current MC version
-
DeferredRegistercorrectly registered to the mod event bus - Side-only code annotated with
@OnlyIn(Dist.CLIENT)where needed - Network packets sent on the correct logical side
- Metadata completeness:
plugin.yml/fabric.mod.json/mods.toml - Registered types are correct (e.g. a Block has a matching BlockItem)
- Mixin injection points are safe (FINAL, target method signatures)
4.2 Performance
- Expensive work in
tick()(heavy loops, I/O, per-tick allocation) - Capability implements
INBTSerializablecorrectly - Per-frame allocation in renderers
- Data generation accidentally on the production path
-
Map<BlockPos, *>performance over large iterations - Excessive synchronous network calls
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 105 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A 0b04af917dfe
mc-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository sikadi233-hub/mc-dev (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 1,047 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (reads agent configuration directories). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
animation-review
Reviews Godot Animation implementation for known pitfalls. Triggers AFTER implementation, when code involves AnimationPlayer, AnimationTree, AnimatedSprite2D, SpriteFrames, AnimationNodeStateMachine, BlendSpace, OneShot, callbackmodeprocess, or animation playback control (play/travel/start). Do NOT use this skill for…
tilemap-review
Reviews Godot TileMap implementation for known pitfalls. Triggers AFTER implementation, when code involves TileMapLayer, TileSet, TileSetAtlasSource, TileSetScenesCollectionSource, terrain painting, setcell, erasecell, getcelltiledata, collision polygons on tiles, or NavigationRegion2D with tile-based navigation. Do…
godot-code-review
Use when reviewing GDScript or C# Godot code — checklist of best practices, common anti-patterns, and Godot-specific pitfalls.
hz-unity-code-review
Reviews Unity code targeting Meta Quest and Horizon OS for performance issues, rendering best practices, and common VR pitfalls. Use during code review or when diagnosing Quest performance problems in Unity projects.
unity-reviewer
Use when reviewing Unity C# code changes — checks for runtime-breaking bugs, performance anti-patterns, and maintainability issues. Provides severity-tiered review organized as Critical, Performance, and Style.
design-lenses
Structured game-design critique: review a game through Schell's design lenses, Wright's systems-and-emergence lenses, and the MDA framework, producing severity-ranked findings with concrete fixes. Use when the user asks 'is my game fun?', 'review my game design', 'why is it boring?', 'critique this game', 'what's…