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 smallnest/pigo --skill review-itgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/smallnest/pigoWrote 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/smallnest/pigo/review-it)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/smallnest/pigo/review-it"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/smallnest/pigo/review-it/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/smallnest/pigo/review-it"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/smallnest/pigo/review-it.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 | $0.00039 | $0.01522 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00609 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00304 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00152 |
Grade A, and why
review-it 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:
- review-it — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 163 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
CC Review
Run automated code review as a closeout check before committing or shipping. Works across multiple AI coding agents.
Use when:
- user asks for code review / review-it / autoreview
- after non-trivial code edits, before final/commit/ship
- reviewing a local branch or PR branch after fixes
Supported Agents
| Agent | Review Command | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | /review |
Built-in, works on uncommitted changes or diff |
| Codex | codex review |
Pass diff file or let it auto-detect |
| OpenCode | /review |
Same as Claude Code |
| DeepSeek TUI | /review or manual diff review |
Pass diff content for analysis |
| Antigravity CLI | /code-review |
Built-in slash command, auto-detects diff |
Contract
- Treat review output as advisory. Never blindly apply it.
- Verify every finding by reading the real code path and adjacent files.
- Read dependency docs/source/types when the finding depends on external behavior.
- Reject unrealistic edge cases, speculative risks, broad rewrites, and fixes that over-complicate the codebase.
- Prefer small fixes at the right ownership boundary; no refactor unless it clearly improves the bug class.
- Keep going until review returns no accepted/actionable findings.
- If a review-triggered fix changes code, rerun focused tests and rerun review.
- Stop as soon as the review comes back clean with no actionable findings.
- If rejecting a finding as intentional/not worth fixing, add a brief inline code comment only when it explains a real invariant or ownership decision that future reviewers should know.
- Do not push just to review. Push only when the user requested push/ship/PR update.
Review Focus
请 review 当前 diff。不要只看语法和明显 bug，请重点检查以下维度，最后按严重程度排序：
- 隐藏副作用 (Hidden Side Effects) — 变更是否在非显而易见的地方产生级联影响？是否修改了共享状态、全局变量、或外部依赖的行为？
- 破坏兼容性 (Breaking Compatibility) — 是否改变了 API 签名、数据结构、配置文件格式、或命令行接口？现有调用方是否会受影响？
- 边界情况 (Edge Cases) — null/空值/空集合、极大/极小值、并发/竞态条件、异常路径是否被正确处理？
- 性能风险 (Performance Risks) — 是否引入了不必要的循环嵌套、N+1 查询、大对象分配、阻塞 I/O、或锁竞争？
- 安全风险 (Security Risks) — 是否存在注入、越权、敏感信息泄露、不安全的反序列化、或依赖版本漏洞？
- 命名误导 (Naming Misleading) — 变量/函数/类型名称是否与实际行为不一致？是否存在名不副实或语义模糊的命名？
- 测试不足 (Insufficient Testing) — 关键路径、边界条件、错误处理是否缺少测试覆盖？现有测试是否真正验证了期望行为？
- 未来维护成本 (Future Maintenance Cost) — 是否引入了不必要的抽象、重复代码、隐式耦合、或难以追踪的控制流？后来者是否容易理解和修改？
What ships with it
1 file 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 · 163 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A e19b89cdc68a
review-it is a skill published in the GitHub repository smallnest/pigo (484 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,522 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
code-review
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use…
improve-codebase-architecture
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
pr
Use when writing a PR body.
autofix-pr
Watch a pull request and fix it from a worktree of its own - CI failures, review feedback from trusted authors and merge conflicts are fixed, pushed to the PR branch and answered on the PR under the user's git and gh identity. Usage - /autofix-pr [ | ] [--once] [--every ] [--no-reply] [--yes] [instructions]…
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
review
Diff-scoped correctness review that reads the codebase around the change — callers, contracts, and invariants — and returns line-anchored findings ranked by severity with confidence, then a merge-risk verdict. Use for reviewing a PR, diff, or named change set. Not for style review, approvals-as-rubber-stamp, or…