Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Szesnasty/Jarvis. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Szesnasty/Jarvis/main/.claude/skills/code-reviewer/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Szesnasty/JarvisWrote 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/szesnasty/jarvis/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/szesnasty/jarvis/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/szesnasty/jarvis/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/szesnasty/jarvis/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/szesnasty/jarvis/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 | $0.00047 | $0.00630 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00252 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
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.
This is a copy
88% identical to code-reviewer — 12 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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
When reviewing code, follow this structured process:
1. Read First, Judge Second
Read all changed files completely before writing any feedback. Understand the intent and context before critiquing details.
2. Categorize Findings by Severity
- Critical — Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, correctness bugs
- High — Performance issues that will bite in production, error handling gaps, race conditions
- Medium — API design issues, missing validation at system boundaries, type safety gaps
- Low — Style inconsistencies, naming, minor readability improvements
3. What to Check
Correctness
- Does the code do what it claims to do?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values)?
- Are error paths tested and recoverable?
Security
- Input validation at system boundaries (user input, external APIs)
- SQL injection, XSS, command injection risks
- Secrets or credentials in code
- Dependency vulnerabilities
Architecture
- Does this change belong in this module?
- Are the abstractions at the right level?
- Will this be maintainable in 6 months?
- Does it follow the existing patterns in the codebase?
Performance
- O(n²) or worse in hot paths?
- Unbounded queries or collections?
- Missing indexes on queried fields?
- Unnecessary allocations in loops?
Testing
- Are the critical paths covered?
- Do tests verify behavior, not implementation?
- Are edge cases and error paths tested?
4. How to Give Feedback
- Lead with the specific file and line
- State what the issue is, not just that there is one
- Explain WHY it matters, not just that it's wrong
- Suggest a fix when possible
- Distinguish between "must fix" and "consider changing"
5. Output Format
## Code Review: [component/feature name]
**Overall Assessment**: [Good | Needs Work | Critical Issues] — one sentence summary
### Critical Issues
[numbered list or "None found"]
### High Priority
[numbered list with file:line references]
### Medium Priority
[numbered list]
### Low Priority
[numbered list]
### Architecture Positives
[what's done well — always include this]
### Recommended Priorities
[ordered list of what to fix first]
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 · 95 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A db84353b0ffa
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository Szesnasty/Jarvis (12 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 630 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 88% identical to code-reviewer, differing in 12 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
engineer-bot-getting-started
An onboarding guide for an engineering delivery assistant. It helps define a repository, the allowed level of access, and the work needed before reviewing a code change.
nightly-audit-engineer-getting-started
A first-conversation guide for setting up a code-audit assistant. A code audit is a focused review of source code for defects or risky behavior, with the needed repository, scope, concerns, permissions, and schedule clarified first.
nightly-audit-engineer-ops
A workflow for reviewing code for reproducible quality problems and recording the evidence behind each finding. It follows data through inputs, permissions, storage, asynchronous work, and recovery, then suggests the smallest authorized fix.
nightly-audit-engineer-evidence
A small local checker that creates stable identifiers for code-audit findings and marks duplicates within the current batch or among previously seen findings. It processes supplied JSON with Python and does not infer whether a problem was fixed.
engineer-bot-evidence
A local checker for confirming that delivery checks and supporting evidence belong to the current software version. It does not contact Git, continuous-integration systems, or the internet.
ha-code-review
Hope-native review of uncommitted, staged, commit, branch, or PR changes: discover concrete regressions, independently verify candidates, and report actionable findings first without speculative noise.