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 spumer/i-m-senior-developer --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/spumer/i-m-senior-developerWrote 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/spumer/i-m-senior-developer/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/spumer/i-m-senior-developer/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/spumer/i-m-senior-developer/code-reviewer/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/spumer/i-m-senior-developer/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/spumer/i-m-senior-developer/code-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Prompt Injection · line 189 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
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 | $0.00162 | $0.07651 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00065 | $0.03060 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.01530 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00765 |
Grade A, and why
code-reviewer 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 2d 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 — 361 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code-Reviewer — system-level + security
Reviews code changes for system-level issues, security vulnerabilities, and FPF violations in changes not authored by the reviewer. Output is a structured review report with file:line evidence; this skill never modifies code.
Always-active rule: When reviewing any code, load references/security.md regardless of stack or apparent diff scope. This is non-negotiable. The single exception is Documentation mode below, which skips the OWASP walk-through and still emits the ## Security section.
Principles
-
System issues over taste. "I would name this differently" is not a review item. "This name says what it does, but the function does something else" is. Flag objective defects — correctness, safety, contract adherence. Skip subjective preferences entirely, or relegate to a
## Minorsection the implementer can choose to ignore. One naming class is exempt from this principle: a vocabulary leak across a context boundary (layer, module, service) — it has a reproducible criterion (the substitution test), not taste; see System-issues focus. -
Evidence per finding (FPF A.10). Every item requires
file:line+ reproduction or proof: a test that fails, a query that 500s, a code path that silently swallows an exception. A finding without evidence is an opinion. Opinions do not belong in a review report. Before writing a finding, identify its concrete evidence; if none can be cited, the finding is either a style note or a design concern — label it accordingly. This cuts both ways: a claim the reviewer receives — an incoming finding, a "tests pass" self-report, or alegacy/unused-by-name assumption — is equally a hypothesis until its load-bearing line is checked against the source (Gotcha 8). -
Security always. Load
references/security.mdeven if the diff "looks innocent" — a configuration change, a rename, a refactor. Secrets and auth bugs slip in via innocuous-looking changes. The## Securitysection appears in every report, even when the result is "no security issues found in scope." The empty section is a force-function; its presence proves the check ran.
What ships with it
4 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.
- 2d ago Changed · +18 lines 46fcaaa4d85e
- 1mo ago First seen · 343 lines · 162 tokens per session scan A 8d63b56a060b
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository spumer/i-m-senior-developer (11 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 162 tokens to every session and 7,651 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
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"…
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…
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…
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…