Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add testdouble/han/plugin install han-codingWrote 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/testdouble/han/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/testdouble/han/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testdouble/han/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/testdouble/han/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/testdouble/han/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 | $0.00147 | $0.07857 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00059 | $0.03143 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.01571 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00786 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 499 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When running a code review, follow the process outlined here.
Project Context
- git installed: !
which git 2>/dev/null || echo "not installed" - CLAUDE.md: !
find . -maxdepth 1 -name "CLAUDE.md" -type f - project-discovery.md: !
find . -maxdepth 3 -name "project-discovery.md" -type f - personal config directory: !
bash "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/han-config-dir.sh" 2>/dev/null || echo "$HOME/.claude" - project .han/config.md: !
cat .han/config.md 2>/dev/null || echo ""
As your first action, use the Read tool on .han/config.md inside the personal config directory path above. A read
that returns no file is no personal configuration: continue silently. When that file or the project .han/config.md
probe supplies content, apply it per config-rule.md, which governs precedence
between the two files, relative-path resolution, and what to do with a file that reads but cannot be used.
Review Constraints
Severity levels:
- Critical — Must fix before merge. Security vulnerabilities, data corruption risk, breaking API changes, data isolation failures.
- Warning — Should fix. Bugs that don't corrupt data, significant performance issues, missing required tests, missing error handling.
- Suggestion — Consider improving. Style improvements, optional performance gains, documentation gaps, refactoring opportunities.
Severity calibration is governed by Step 3.3 (the authoritative home for size-based demotion). Manual findings from
Steps 4 to 6 follow the same size-based rules as agent findings classified at Step 7: Small changes escalate only
Critical findings and default uncertain ones to the lower severity, Medium changes escalate Critical and Warning, Large
changes prefer the higher severity when in doubt. Read {size} from Step 3.1. Include file_path:line_number
references and code examples for suggested fixes.
Finding caps: Manual review findings (Steps 4-6) and agent findings (Step 7) are each capped at 30 items. Prioritize by severity: all CRIT first, then WARN, then SUGG. If either cap is exceeded, note that additional items were omitted and another code review is recommended after addressing current items. Security findings are not capped (see classification rubric).
What ships with it
9 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.
- references/agent-dispatch.md 26 KB
- references/agent-finding-classification.md 10 KB
- references/finding-content.md 8.7 KB
- references/finding-filters.md 6.9 KB
- references/output-verification.md 8.1 KB
- references/review-checklist.md 8.2 KB
- references/template.md 10 KB
- scripts/detect-review-context.bats 11 KB
- scripts/detect-review-context.sh 3.8 KB runs code
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 Changed · +3 lines · +16 tokens per session e0ee3d93c7e1
- 1mo ago First seen · 496 lines · 131 tokens per session scan A fd0edb7495fe
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository testdouble/han (304 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 147 tokens to every session and 7,857 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.
pr-threads-address
Address PR review feedback by systematically working through every unresolved PR review thread on the current branch's PR - analyze each comment, make the requested code changes (with tests where useful), commit, and optionally reply and resolve.
security-architecture-review
Reviews a design or change for security before it ships — authentication and authorization, data handling, secrets, dependencies, and the secure-development practices around it. Use this to review an architecture or pull request for security, set secure coding standards, choose or tune SAST and DAST tooling, assess a…