Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to stevesolun/ctx. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stevesolun/ctx/main/.agents/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stevesolun/ctxWrote 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/stevesolun/ctx/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stevesolun/ctx/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stevesolun/ctx/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/stevesolun/ctx/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stevesolun/ctx/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- 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 | $0.00039 | $0.00349 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00140 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00070 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00035 |
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.
What it actually says
Review code changes
Establish scope
Honor a fixed point supplied by the user. Otherwise infer a sensible comparison from the repository state, such as the default-branch merge-base. Ask only when different choices would materially change the review.
Verify that the ref resolves and inspect the diff and relevant commit messages. Report an empty or unavailable comparison instead of manufacturing findings.
Collect references
Use the repository's actual standards and the originating issue, PRD, or spec when available. Follow repository conventions for fetching tracker context. If requirements cannot be found, review the standards axis and state that spec conformance was not verified.
Evaluate two axes
- Standards: Does the change follow documented repository conventions and avoid material design regressions?
- Spec: Does it implement the requested behavior without omissions, incorrect behavior, or unrelated scope?
Use deterministic checks for properties tooling can decide. For qualitative review, load review heuristics only when the diff warrants deeper design analysis.
The axes are independent and may be evaluated concurrently when the diff is large enough to benefit. Keep a small review local, and avoid parallel work when coordination would cost more than it saves.
Report
Lead with actionable findings, citing the affected file and evidence. Separate documented violations from judgment calls and keep Standards and Spec findings distinct so one axis cannot mask the other. State unavailable evidence and report when no material findings remain.
What ships with it
2 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 · 45 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A b0b9edc0394f
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository stevesolun/ctx (589 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 349 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
oracle
Oracle second-model review: bundle prompts/files, debug, refactor, design.
pr-review
Review open PRs two ways - default is a per-PR deep review with severity-tagged findings, inline comments, and a verdict; --survey runs a risk-tiered triage digest of what's safe to merge first.
pr-triage
First-touch triage for external pull requests - verdict, label, and a welcoming comment within minutes of open.
feedback-builder
Point Aeon at a service's /feedback endpoint - pull what agents reported (bugs, missing features), triage and cluster it, then build the best accepted request as a PR for a human to approve.
[REPLACE: SKILL_NAME]
First-touch review of newly opened PRs on [REPLACE: WATCHEDREPO] — verdict + welcoming comment + label.
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.