Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sun2443/designer-skillsnpx agentmods add skills/sun2443/designer-skills/code-reviewWrote 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/sun2443/designer-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/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/sun2443/designer-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/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 | $0.00058 | $0.00827 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00331 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00165 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00083 |
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 13d 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
100% identical to code-review — 0 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 — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/code-review
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Review code changes with a structured lens on security, performance, correctness, and maintainability.
Usage
/code-review <PR URL or file path>
Review the provided code changes: @$1
If no specific file or URL is provided, ask what to review.
How It Works
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CODE REVIEW │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ STANDALONE (always works) │
│ ✓ Paste a diff, PR URL, or point to files │
│ ✓ Security audit (OWASP top 10, injection, auth) │
│ ✓ Performance review (N+1, memory leaks, complexity) │
│ ✓ Correctness (edge cases, error handling, race conditions) │
│ ✓ Style (naming, structure, readability) │
│ ✓ Actionable suggestions with code examples │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ SUPERCHARGED (when you connect your tools) │
│ + Source control: Pull PR diff automatically │
│ + Project tracker: Link findings to tickets │
│ + Knowledge base: Check against team coding standards │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Review Dimensions
Security
- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF
- Authentication and authorization flaws
- Secrets or credentials in code
- Insecure deserialization
- Path traversal
- SSRF
Performance
- N+1 queries
- Unnecessary memory allocations
- Algorithmic complexity (O(n²) in hot paths)
- Missing database indexes
- Unbounded queries or loops
- Resource leaks
Correctness
- Edge cases (empty input, null, overflow)
- Race conditions and concurrency issues
- Error handling and propagation
- Off-by-one errors
- Type safety
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 119 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 6303932f1b30
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository sun2443/designer-skills (0 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 827 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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"…
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…
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…