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 stefaniuk/loadout --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stefaniuk/loadoutWrote 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/stefaniuk/loadout/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/code-review/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/stefaniuk/loadout/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stefaniuk/loadout/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00029 | $0.01279 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00512 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00256 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00128 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 109 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Skill
This skill runs a structured review within the Spec Kit pipeline. It supports three review types, each with a distinct focus and output format.
Review Type Resolution
Resolve the review type from the user's input ($ARGUMENTS). Match against the table below.
| Type | Role | Focus | Position in pipeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentation | Product Owner | Spec integrity, traceability, language, structure, redundancy, cross-document alignment | After spec + plan, before implementation |
| code | Implementation Engineer | Constitution compliance, specification coverage, discrepancy detection, plan/tasks alignment | After implementation, before test review |
| test | Implementation Engineer | Test pyramid health, unit test quality, high-value gaps, spec alignment, test refactoring | After code review |
If the review type is not in this table, inform the user and list the supported types.
Mandatory Context Gathering
For all review types:
- Read the constitution - it has the highest authority.
- Enumerate available artefacts in the
specs/directory of the current feature. - Read the spec set in feature order:
spec.md→plan.md→tasks.md. - Read any relevant ADRs in
docs/adr/.
Additional Context by Type
documentation: Also read docs/ directory contents and README.md for cross-document alignment checks.
code: Build a behaviour inventory mapping constitution rules → spec requirements → implementation code → test coverage. Identify any gaps.
test: Execute make test and review the output. Analyse the test pyramid (unit, integration, end-to-end) and identify coverage gaps.
What ships with it
5 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 109 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A 6eb9a0c7772f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository stefaniuk/loadout (1 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,279 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review
Review pull requests for repository fit, meaningful value, trustworthy provenance, differentiation, and maintainability in awesome-copilot.
spec-kitty-implement-review
Orchestrate the implement-review loop for Spec Kitty work packages using any configured agent. Covers agent dispatch, state transitions, rejection cycles, arbiter escalation, and dependency-aware sequencing across all 13 supported coding agents. Triggers: "implement and review WPs", "run the implement-review loop"…
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…
code-review-csharp
Perform structured code reviews of C# source code covering naming conventions, performance, security, readability, and .NET best practices. Trigger phrases include "review this C# code", "check my C# for best practices", "analyze this C# class", "find issues in my C# code".
mcp-server-review
Review a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server implementation against the 2026-07-28 protocol revision, which removed the initialize handshake and Mcp-Session-Id and made the protocol stateless. Use when the user asks to review, audit, upgrade or migrate an MCP server, asks whether their MCP server is spec compliant…