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 siviter-xyz/dot-agent --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/siviter-xyz/dot-agentWrote 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/siviter-xyz/dot-agent/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/siviter-xyz/dot-agent/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/siviter-xyz/dot-agent/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/siviter-xyz/dot-agent/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/siviter-xyz/dot-agent/code-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 | $0.00035 | $0.00522 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00209 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00104 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00052 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 78 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 processes
- Verification gates - Evidence before any completion claims
Core Principle
Technical correctness over social comfort. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.
When to Use
Receiving Feedback
- 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
Requesting Review
- 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
Verification Gates
- 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
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 systematic review
│ └─ Before merge? → Request systematic review
│
└─ About to claim status
├─ Have fresh verification? → State claim WITH evidence
└─ No fresh verification? → RUN verification command first
CI Verification
Before any completion claim or commit:
- Run CI checks (types, tests, lint)
- Prefer single CI command if available
- Verify all checks pass
- Do not proceed if checks fail
References
For detailed protocols, see:
references/receiving-feedback.md- How to handle code review feedbackreferences/requesting-review.md- Systematic review processesreferences/verification-gates.md- Evidence before claims protocol
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 · 78 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A ddcaa5fcdbaf
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository siviter-xyz/dot-agent (22 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 522 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…