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 synaptiai/synapti-marketplace --skill code-review-methodologygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/synaptiai/synapti-marketplaceWrote 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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/code-review-methodology)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/code-review-methodology"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/code-review-methodology/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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/code-review-methodology"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/code-review-methodology.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 | $0.00090 | $0.02063 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00045 | $0.01032 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00413 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00206 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-methodology 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 6d 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 — 188 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Methodology
Domain skill for structured, multi-faceted code review.
Iron Law
FIRST VERIFY IT WORKS, THEN VERIFY IT'S GOOD. Never review code quality on code that doesn't function correctly.
Spec compliance is Stage 1. Code quality is Stage 2. Reviewing style on broken logic is wasted effort.
Two-Stage Review
Stage 1 — Spec Compliance: Does the code do what the issue/acceptance criteria require? Map each criterion to implementation evidence. If Stage 1 fails, stop — no point reviewing quality on code that doesn't meet requirements.
Stage 2 — Code Quality (in priority order):
- Security — vulnerabilities, auth bypass, injection, secrets
- Correctness — logic errors, race conditions, edge cases
- Performance — O(n^2) in hot paths, unnecessary allocations, N+1 queries
- Maintainability — readability, naming, structure (lowest priority)
Do NOT flag maintainability issues if security or correctness issues exist. Fix the important things first.
6-Facet Review
Every review evaluates these facets (parallelizable):
| Facet | Focus | Agent / Skill |
|---|---|---|
| Security | OWASP top 10, secrets, auth/authz, input validation | security-reviewer |
| Quality | Logic correctness, edge cases | code-reviewer |
| Conventions | Commit format, branch naming, PR structure, patterns | convention-checker |
| Tests | Coverage, quality commands pass, test quality | test-runner |
| Error handling | Unhandled errors, silent failures, missing edge cases in error paths | error-handler-inspector |
| Claim verification | Self-review claims cross-referenced against actual file state | holdout-validation (skill) |
Requirements compliance is Stage 1 (Spec Compliance) of the Two-Stage Review section above, not a parallel facet — it runs first on the main thread before the 6 facets fan out.
For the Tests facet specifically, see test-review-checklist.md for a runnable checklist of coverage, quality, and integration-test signals reviewers can flag with citations.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 188 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A 9396aa376e70
code-review-methodology is a skill published in the GitHub repository synaptiai/synapti-marketplace (6 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 2,063 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
check
Confirm a change before merge. /check verify drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). /check review runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never…
independent-review-loop
Independent review loop run before delivery in code work. An independent reviewer (Codex, or fresh Codex-style subagents) reads the whole PR against the approved outcome; the lead fixes in-scope functional findings and re-reviews until none remain. Its differentiator is independence and exhaustiveness — a reviewer…
x-spec
A system-planning guide that turns a vague idea into a set of linked design documents. It defines goals, modules, interfaces, data, workflows, and ways to check the result.
x-audit-arch
A project-wide architecture review skill that checks whether code is placed in the right modules and whether important definitions have one reliable source.
x-multi-llm-align
A review process in which two sub-agents examine an API, data format, event schema, or workflow from their separate implementation perspectives. The user passes documents and feedback between them over multiple rounds.
x-cr
A software-correctness investigation skill for finding why code behaves differently from what was expected. It uses evidence from code paths, specifications, tests, logs, and changes to assess possible causes.