Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Taketo-Yoda/uv-sbom. 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/Taketo-Yoda/uv-sbom/develop/.claude/skills/code-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Taketo-Yoda/uv-sbomWrote 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/taketo-yoda/uv-sbom/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/taketo-yoda/uv-sbom/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/taketo-yoda/uv-sbom/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/taketo-yoda/uv-sbom/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/taketo-yoda/uv-sbom/code-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to low
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- low Excessive Agency · line 42 Skill's behavior or capabilities extend beyond its stated purpose. Scope creep allows an agent to perform actions unrelated to its documented functionality, increasing the attack surface.Fix: Limit the skill's scope to its documented purpose. Remove instructions that enable the agent to perform actions outside its stated functionality.
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 | $0.00019 | $0.04739 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01896 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00948 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00474 |
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 19d 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 — 440 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/code-review - Code Review Skill
Spawns a dedicated Reviewer Agent to evaluate the current git diff HEAD against
architectural, design, and quality criteria specific to uv-sbom.
This skill does NOT re-run CI checks (cargo fmt, clippy). Those are enforced by the
/commit skill and the CI pipeline.
Invocation
Standalone: Invoke at any time to review uncommitted changes.
Integrated: Called automatically by /implement Step 4.5 before /commit.
Workflow
Step 1: Collect diff
Step 2: Spawn Reviewer Agent (foreground)
Step 3: Parse result (PASS / FAIL)
├── PASS → run Step 3.5, then report success, return control to caller
└── FAIL → apply fixes, increment counter, return to Step 1
(max 3 iterations; halt and report if still failing)
Step 3.5: Follow-up Issue Gate (runs once, at the terminal state only —
after PASS, or after the final post-3-iteration report)
Steps
Step 1: Collect Diff and File Content
git diff HEAD --name-only # list changed files
git diff HEAD # full diff for the reviewer
For each file listed by --name-only, also read its full current content.
This is required for file-size checks and documentation coverage checks.
In addition, run the following scan and include its output as supplemental context for criterion 11:
grep -rn 'eprintln!\|println!' src/ \
| grep -v 'msgs\.\|Messages::' \
| grep -v '#\[cfg(test)\]' \
| grep -v '\.rs:.*//.*i18n-ok'
- Lines in changed files: flag as 🔴 MUST FIX under criterion 11.
- Lines in unchanged files: flag as 🟡 SHOULD FIX (pre-existing violation).
If any changed file is under .claude/, also include the full content of
.claude/conventions/README.md and every file it indexes, as supplemental context
for criterion 3.
If git diff HEAD is empty, report "Nothing to review — no uncommitted changes."
and exit.
Step 2: Spawn Reviewer Agent
Use the Agent tool with subagent_type: "general-purpose", run foreground.
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.
- 19d ago Changed · +9 lines 58c391b813b7
- 25d ago Changed · -4 lines e537d9b54651
- 1mo ago Changed · +9 lines 13ee805fca2f
- 1mo ago Changed · +73 lines f1480f0306cc
- 1mo ago First seen · 353 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A c302c47301bb
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Taketo-Yoda/uv-sbom (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 4,739 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-test-stubs
Review the test stubs for coverage, scope, vacuous-assertion freedom, finding-grounded scope, and happy-path completeness against the interview and the modeled schema — not for code quality.
review-implementation
Gate the implementation against its contract for correctness, quality, drift, and green tests.
code-review
Perform a structured code review of changes, checking for correctness, style, tests, and potential issues.
code-review
Code review assistance with linting, style checking, and best practices.
splitting-oversized-modules
Split an oversized Python module (a thousand-plus-line logic.py, models.py, api.py, or its test file) into a package of one module per concern, mechanically and provably without changing behavior. Use on a request to split / break up / decompose a god module or move functions out of one, once a human has agreed to…
red-team-review
Unified adversarial review, two modes. Strategic Matrix v4.3 (MTA-004) for arguments/plans/decisions: Priors → Rubric → Adversarial Lenses → SWOT/TOWS → MCDA → Blind Spot/Kill Switch → Summary. Deliverable Audit for built artefacts (assignments, reports, code outputs): isolated fresh-context hunt against the brief…