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 summarybotng/summarybot-ng --skill code-review-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/summarybotng/summarybot-ngWrote 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/summarybotng/summarybot-ng/code-review-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/summarybotng/summarybot-ng/code-review-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/summarybotng/summarybot-ng/code-review-quality/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/summarybotng/summarybot-ng/code-review-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/summarybotng/summarybot-ng/code-review-quality.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01677 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00671 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00335 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00168 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-quality 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to code-review-quality — 15 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 236 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Quality
<default_to_action> When reviewing code or establishing review practices:
- PRIORITIZE feedback: 🔴 Blocker (must fix) → 🟡 Major → 🟢 Minor → 💡 Suggestion
- FOCUS on: Bugs, security, testability, maintainability (not style preferences)
- ASK questions over commands: "Have you considered...?" > "Change this to..."
- PROVIDE context: Why this matters, not just what to change
- LIMIT scope: Review < 400 lines at a time for effectiveness
Quick Review Checklist:
- Logic: Does it work correctly? Edge cases handled?
- Security: Input validation? Auth checks? Injection risks?
- Testability: Can this be tested? Is it tested?
- Maintainability: Clear naming? Single responsibility? DRY?
- Performance: O(n²) loops? N+1 queries? Memory leaks?
Critical Success Factors:
- Review the code, not the person
- Catching bugs > nitpicking style
- Fast feedback (< 24h) > thorough feedback </default_to_action>
Quick Reference Card
When to Use
- PR code reviews
- Pair programming feedback
- Establishing team review standards
- Mentoring developers
Feedback Priority Levels
| Level | Icon | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blocker | 🔴 | Bug/security/crash | Must fix before merge |
| Major | 🟡 | Logic issue/test gap | Should fix before merge |
| Minor | 🟢 | Style/naming | Nice to fix |
| Suggestion | 💡 | Alternative approach | Consider for future |
Review Scope Limits
| Lines Changed | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| < 200 | Single review session |
| 200-400 | Review in chunks |
| > 400 | Request PR split |
What to Focus On
| ✅ Review | ❌ Skip |
|---|---|
| Logic correctness | Formatting (use linter) |
| Security risks | Naming preferences |
| Test coverage | Architecture debates |
| Performance issues | Style opinions |
| Error handling | Trivial changes |
Feedback Templates
Blocker (Must Fix)
🔴 **BLOCKER: SQL Injection Risk**
This query is vulnerable to SQL injection:
```javascript
db.query(`SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ${userId}`)
Fix: Use parameterized queries:
db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = ?', [userId])
Why: User input directly in SQL allows attackers to execute arbitrary queries.
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 · 236 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A a9ca789ec513
code-review-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository summarybotng/summarybot-ng (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,677 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to code-review-quality, differing in 15 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-quality
Conduct context-driven code reviews focusing on quality, testability, and maintainability. Use when reviewing code, providing feedback, or establishing review practices.
code-review-quality
Conduct context-driven code reviews focusing on quality, testability, and maintainability. Use when reviewing code, providing feedback, or establishing review practices.
code-review
Use to judge a concrete diff, branch, or GitHub PR on its own merits with no rsc-SDD spec/plan chain to key off — the spec-less giving pass behind /code-review: only findings you can defend, one verdict, read-only unless --comment or --fix. NOT the SDD gate keyed to 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/ that also processes incoming…
structured-code-review
Performs a structured five-stage code review covering requirements compliance, correctness, code quality, testing, and security/performance. Each stage uses targeted checklists and categorized feedback (Blocker/Major/Minor/Nit) with actionable suggestions and rationale. Use when the user asks for code review, PR…
code-reviewer
Use for code or pull-request review, architecture conformance, maintainability, performance, anti-pattern, or technical-debt assessment.
code-review-checklist
Generates comprehensive, context-aware code review checklists tailored to the specific codebase, programming language, and team standards. Analyzes PR diffs and suggests what reviewers should focus on.