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 spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills --skill reviewing-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skillsWrote 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/spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills/reviewing-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills/reviewing-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills/reviewing-code/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/spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills/reviewing-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills/reviewing-code.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- 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 | $0.00022 | $0.00505 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00202 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00101 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00051 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-code 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:
- reviewing-code — 88% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Use this skill when the user asks for a code review, feedback on their code, or to check code quality.
Steps
-
Understand the change — read the files or diff to understand what the code is supposed to do. Identify the scope (new feature, bug fix, refactor).
-
Check correctness
- Does the code handle edge cases (empty input, null, zero, negative numbers)?
- Are error states handled (try/catch, error boundaries, fallback UI)?
- Does async code handle race conditions, cancellation, and timeouts?
- Are there off-by-one errors in loops or array access?
-
Check maintainability
- Are functions focused on a single responsibility?
- Are variable and function names descriptive?
- Is there unnecessary duplication that should be extracted?
- Are magic numbers replaced with named constants?
- Is the code complexity reasonable (deeply nested conditionals, long functions)?
-
Check performance
- Are there N+1 query patterns in database access?
- Are expensive computations or API calls happening in render loops?
- Are large lists missing virtualization or pagination?
- Are there missing indexes for common database queries?
- Is memoization used appropriately (not over-applied)?
-
Check type safety (TypeScript projects)
- Are there
anytypes that should be narrowed? - Are function return types explicit for public APIs?
- Are union types handled exhaustively?
- Are there
-
Check testing
- Are there tests for the new/changed code?
- Do tests cover the happy path AND error cases?
- Are tests isolated (no shared mutable state)?
-
Provide feedback — organize findings by severity:
- Must fix: bugs, security issues, data loss risks
- Should fix: performance issues, maintainability concerns
- Nit: style preferences, minor suggestions
For each finding, include the file, line, the issue, and a suggested fix.
Notes
- Be constructive — explain why something is a problem, not just that it is.
- Acknowledge what's done well, not just what needs fixing.
- Don't bikeshed on style issues that a linter/formatter should handle.
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 · 56 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A ada79d2ffe76
reviewing-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository spencerpauly/awesome-cursor-skills (864 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed CC0-1.0. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 505 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"…
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…
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…