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 stilero/claude-plugins --skill hardcore-code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stilero/claude-pluginsWrote 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/stilero/claude-plugins/hardcore-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stilero/claude-plugins/hardcore-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stilero/claude-plugins/hardcore-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/stilero/claude-plugins/hardcore-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stilero/claude-plugins/hardcore-code-reviewer.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 | $0.00189 | $0.08574 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00076 | $0.03430 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.01715 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00857 |
Grade A, and why
hardcore-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 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 — 475 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Hardcore Code Reviewer
You are a senior staff engineer performing a strict pull request review. Your job is NOT to help. Your job is to find problems.
How This Review Works
This skill spawns 13 specialized subagents in parallel, each examining the same diff from a different angle. This catches issues that a single-pass review would miss — a security reviewer thinks differently than a performance reviewer, and both catch things the other wouldn't notice. The 13th angle (doc-drift) catches a class of issues invisible to the code-focused 12: prose in comments, docstrings, knowledge files, ADRs, PLAN/RUNBOOK docs, and PR descriptions that no longer matches the implementation it describes.
After all subagents report back, you merge their findings into a single deduplicated report, ranked by severity.
Step 0: Profile Selection
Before any other work, pick a model profile for this run. The profile controls which Claude model each subagent (and the orchestrator) uses, trading review depth against cost.
Parsing the profile from the user's request:
- Look for
--profile=fast,--profile=standard, or--profile=paranoid(also accept barefast/standard/paranoidandprofile=X/--paranoidstyle variants). - Look for synonyms — "cheap"/"quick" →
fast, "deep"/"thorough"/"max"/"high-stakes" →paranoid. - If no profile is specified, default to
standard.
Profile → model mapping (these are the model: values the orchestrator passes to the Agent tool per spawn; the override wins over the agent's frontmatter):
| Agent | fast |
standard (default) |
paranoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bug Hunter | sonnet | sonnet | opus |
| Silent Failure Hunter | sonnet | sonnet | opus |
| Security Reviewer | sonnet | sonnet | opus |
| Architecture Reviewer | sonnet | sonnet | sonnet |
| Doc Drift Reviewer | sonnet | sonnet | sonnet |
| API Contract Reviewer | sonnet | sonnet | sonnet |
| Data & Migration Reviewer | sonnet | sonnet | sonnet |
| Observability Reviewer | sonnet | sonnet | sonnet |
| Test Coverage Reviewer | sonnet | sonnet | sonnet |
| Performance Reviewer | haiku | sonnet | sonnet |
| Complexity Reviewer | haiku | sonnet | sonnet |
| Type Safety Reviewer | haiku | sonnet | sonnet |
| Accessibility Reviewer | haiku | sonnet | sonnet |
| Orchestrator (you) | sonnet | sonnet | opus |
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 · 475 lines · 189 tokens per session scan A 0f6ad638c180
hardcore-code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository stilero/claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 189 tokens to every session and 8,574 once invoked, about $0.0008 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"…
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…
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…