sc:code-review

A code-review guide that examines a change or pull request for real defects, starting with correctness and edge cases. It also checks security, performance, readability, interfaces, and tests, with findings linked to specific lines.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review a Git diff or pull request, identify severity-ranked problems, and suggest specific fixes involving behavior, security, resource use, compatibility, or tests.
Why use it?
It helps reviewers focus on bugs and risks that could affect users instead of spending most of the review on style preferences. It also encourages checking claims against the actual code and its surrounding impact.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/squadcodercom/squadcoder/code-review
Any agent
npx skills add squadcodercom/squadcoder --skill code-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/squadcodercom/squadcoder

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 99 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 814 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00099 $0.00814
Opus 5 $0.00049 $0.00407
Sonnet 5 $0.00020 $0.00163
Haiku 4.5 $0.00010 $0.00081

Measured yesterday against content hash ee5d675cd210, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

sc: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 yesterday.

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.

.squadcoder/skills/code-review/SKILL.md · 56 lines

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 — senior-engineer pass over a diff/PR

Find what matters and say it clearly. A good review surfaces real defects with evidence, not a list of style opinions. Default to reviewing the changed lines and their blast radius.

Step 0 — orient

  • What is this change trying to do? (Read the PR description / commit messages / the diff intent.)
  • What's the blast radius — what calls this, what does it call, what data does it touch?
  • Get the actual diff (git diff), don't review from memory.

Review dimensions (in priority order)

  1. Correctness & edge cases — does it do what it claims? Off-by-one, null/empty/None, error paths, async races, unhandled rejections, boundary inputs, wrong default. This is most of the value.
  2. Security — input validation, injection (SQL/command/path traversal), authn/authz checks, secrets in code/logs, unsafe deserialization, XSS/CSRF for web, SSRF for fetchers.
  3. Resource & performance — N+1 queries, unbounded loops/memory, missing pagination, blocking I/O on a hot path, leaks (listeners, handles), needless re-renders.
  4. API & data contracts — backward compatibility, migration safety, nullable changes, error shapes.
  5. Readability & maintainability — names, dead code, duplication, function size, matches the surrounding style. Flag, don't bikeshed.
  6. Tests — is the new behavior covered? Are the tests meaningful (assert real outcomes) or hollow?

How to report findings

For each finding:

  • Severity: blocker / major / minor / nit.
  • Location: file:line (clickable).
  • What & why: the concrete problem and the failure it causes — quote the code.
  • Fix: a specific suggestion (or a diff), not "consider improving this".

Group by severity; lead with blockers. Example:

[blocker] auth.ts:42 — token compared with ==, so an empty token matches when the stored value is also falsy. Use a constant-time compare and reject empty tokens.

Discipline

  • Verify before asserting. Trace the data flow; don't claim a bug you didn't confirm in the code. If you're unsure, say "possible issue — verify X", don't state it as fact.
  • Separate must-fix (correctness/security) from nice-to-have (style). Don't drown blockers in nits.
  • Praise genuinely good choices briefly — it calibrates the rest.
  • If the diff is large, review in passes (correctness → security → the rest) rather than skimming once.
  • RTL/Hebrew web code: check for physical-CSS leftovers (left/right/ml-/mr-) that break RTL — prefer logical properties.

Read the full file on GitHub · 56 lines

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 56 lines · 99 tokens per session scan A ee5d675cd210

Subscribe to this mod's changes

sc:code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository squadcodercom/squadcoder (11 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 99 tokens to every session and 814 once invoked, about $0.0005 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.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

write-zot-themes

Help the user create, install, or package zot themes, including theme-only extensions.

patriceckhart/zot · 23 tokens

python-testing

Python testing best practices using pytest including fixtures, parametrization, mocking, coverage analysis, async testing, and test organization. Use when writing or improving Python tests.

mturac/everything-openai-codex · 35 tokens

database-migrations

Database migration best practices for schema changes, data migrations, rollbacks, and zero-downtime deployments across PostgreSQL, MySQL, and common ORMs (Prisma, Drizzle, Django, TypeORM, golang-migrate). Use when planning or implementing database schema changes.

mturac/everything-openai-codex · 61 tokens

docker-patterns

Docker and Docker Compose patterns for local development, container security, networking, volume strategies, and multi-service orchestration. Use when setting up containerized development environments or reviewing Docker configurations.

mturac/everything-openai-codex · 40 tokens

python-patterns

Python-specific design patterns and best practices including protocols, dataclasses, context managers, decorators, async/await, type hints, and package organization. Use when working with Python code to apply Pythonic patterns.

mturac/everything-openai-codex · 45 tokens

st-full-workflow

Use when the user asks to run the complete end-to-end Strikethroo workflow for a work order in one shot in this repository — triggers include full workflow, end-to-end, plan and execute, do everything, run the whole strikethroo workflow. Do not use when the user wants only one stage (create a plan, generate tasks, or…

e0ipso/strikethroo · 90 tokens