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 subhansh-dev/agent-maxxing --skill workflow-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/subhansh-dev/agent-maxxingWrote 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/subhansh-dev/agent-maxxing/workflow-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/subhansh-dev/agent-maxxing/workflow-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/subhansh-dev/agent-maxxing/workflow-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/subhansh-dev/agent-maxxing/workflow-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/subhansh-dev/agent-maxxing/workflow-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 | $0.00017 | $0.00612 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00306 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
workflow-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 5d 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 — 92 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Multi-Agent Workflow: Deep Code Review
Run an 8-angle code review with security audit before merging.
Skills Used
| Skill | Role |
|---|---|
| Deep Code Review | 8-angle correctness review |
| Security Review | Security vulnerability audit |
| Code Simplify | Cleanup and optimization |
| Runtime Verify | Run the app and observe behavior |
| Code Review Checklist | Final checklist pass |
Workflow
Phase 1: Gather Context
git diff @{upstream}...HEAD # Get the diff
git log --oneline -10 # Recent commits
Phase 2: Deep Review (Parallel)
Launch 3 parallel reviews:
Review 1 — Correctness (8 angles):
Load Deep Code Review skill.
Run all 8 angles: line-by-line, removed-behavior, cross-file, reuse, simplification, efficiency, altitude, conventions.
Return: up to 10 findings ranked by severity.
Review 2 — Security:
Load Security Review skill.
Examine: input validation, auth, crypto, injection, data exposure.
Return: HIGH/MEDIUM findings only with confidence scores.
Review 3 — Cleanup:
Load Code Simplify skill.
Run 4 cleanup angles: reuse, simplification, efficiency, altitude.
Return: actionable fixes.
Phase 3: Runtime Verification
Load Runtime Verify skill.
Build the app, run it, drive the changed code paths.
Capture: stdout, screenshots, error messages.
Push on it: try edge cases, wrong inputs, rapid actions.
Verdict: PASS / FAIL / BLOCKED / SKIP
Phase 4: Final Checklist
Load Code Review Checklist.
Check: works? readable? safe? performant? maintainable?
Frontend: accessible? responsive? loading states? no CLS?
Backend: migrations reversible? rate limiting? logging?
Phase 5: Report
## Review Summary
**Correctness:** 3 findings (1 HIGH, 2 MEDIUM)
**Security:** 1 finding (1 MEDIUM)
**Cleanup:** 2 suggestions
**Runtime:** PASS — all paths verified
### Critical Findings
1. [HIGH] SQL injection in user search — line 42
2. [MEDIUM] Missing error handler in API route — line 87
### Recommendations
- Add input validation before line 42
- Wrap API handler in try/catch
- Consider adding rate limiting
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 92 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 84f2dd3b133a
workflow-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository subhansh-dev/agent-maxxing (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 612 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
gh-find-prs
Survey open Codewhale PRs and triage each for mergeability and disposition against the real landing branch.
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, code quality, and efficiency, then directly apply straightforward cleanup improvements. Use when the user wants a post-implementation cleanup pass, pre-PR polish, or asks to simplify/refine recent changes. Invoke with /simplify or /simplify .
review
Read-only correctness review with actionable findings first, tight file/line evidence, severity, and a concise residual-risk summary.
simplify
Improve clarity and reduce needless complexity after behavior is understood; preserve behavior and keep cleanup separate from correctness fixes.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
review-it
Code review closeout for Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, DeepSeek TUI, and Antigravity CLI: local dirty changes, branch vs main, parallel tests.