code-review

A review of local source code for defects, risks, and missing safeguards. It checks code that is available in the project rather than reviewing a GitHub pull request.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to audit, inspect, evaluate, or check source files for bugs, security issues, performance problems, API-breaking changes, and missing required tests.
Why use it?
It gives developers a structured way to find problems before code is merged or released.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/testdouble/han/code-review
Any agent
npx skills add testdouble/han --skill code-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/testdouble/han

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 131 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 7,725 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00131 $0.07725
Opus 5 $0.00066 $0.03862
Sonnet 5 $0.00026 $0.01545
Haiku 4.5 $0.00013 $0.00773

Measured yesterday against content hash fd0edb7495fe, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

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 yesterday.

The scan reads SKILL.md. This mod also ships 1 executable file (scripts/detect-review-context.sh), listed below but not scanned — reading those needs a real analyzer, not pattern matching.

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.

han-coding/skills/code-review/SKILL.md · 496 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 496 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).

Read the full file on GitHub · 496 lines

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday First seen · 496 lines · 131 tokens per session scan A fd0edb7495fe

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository testdouble/han (247 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 131 tokens to every session and 7,725 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-08-30.