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 agentmods add skills/smallnest/pigo/review-itnpx 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.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00039 | $0.01522 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00761 |
| Sonnet 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 6d 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.
- 6d ago First seen · 163 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A e19b89cdc68a
review-it is a skill published in the GitHub repository smallnest/pigo (424 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,522 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
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.
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, code quality, and efficiency, then directly apply straightforward cleanup improvements. Use when the user wants a post-implementation cleanup pass, pre-PR polish, or asks to simplify/refine recent changes. Invoke with /simplify or /simplify .
review
Read-only correctness review with actionable findings first, tight file/line evidence, severity, and a concise residual-risk summary.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…