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 The-AI-Directory-Company/agents-and-skills --skill code-review-promptgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/The-AI-Directory-Company/agents-and-skillsWrote 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/the-ai-directory-company/agents-and-skills/code-review-prompt)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/the-ai-directory-company/agents-and-skills/code-review-prompt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/the-ai-directory-company/agents-and-skills/code-review-prompt/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/the-ai-directory-company/agents-and-skills/code-review-prompt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/the-ai-directory-company/agents-and-skills/code-review-prompt.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 | $0.00034 | $0.01219 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00609 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00244 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-prompt 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 9d 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Prompt
Before you start
Gather the following before reviewing:
- What changed? — The diff or file(s) to review
- Why did it change? — Link to ticket, bug report, or one-sentence explanation
- What is the scope? — Quick fix, new feature, refactor, or dependency update
- What should NOT change? — Existing behavior that must be preserved
If the reviewer cannot explain what the change does in one sentence, the PR description is insufficient. Request clarification first.
Procedure
1. Classify the change size
Pick the review depth based on scope:
| Change size | Lines changed | Review approach |
|---|---|---|
| Tiny | 1-10 lines | Scan for correctness and typos. 2 minutes. |
| Small | 11-50 lines | Single-pass review. Check logic, errors, naming. 5 minutes. |
| Medium | 51-200 lines | Two-pass review. First pass for intent, second for details. 15 minutes. |
| Large | 200+ lines | Use the full code-review-checklist skill instead. |
This skill is optimized for tiny-to-medium changes. For large changes, switch to the full code-review-checklist.
2. First pass — intent and safety
Read the entire diff once. Answer these questions:
- Does this change do what the description says it does?
- Does it change anything it should NOT change?
- Are there obvious security issues? (user input used unsanitized, secrets exposed, auth bypassed)
- Are there obvious correctness issues? (off-by-one, null access, wrong comparison operator)
If any answer is concerning, stop and flag it before continuing.
3. Second pass — details
Go through the diff line by line:
- Logic: Does each conditional and loop behave correctly at boundaries?
- Errors: Are failure cases handled? Are error messages specific?
- Naming: Do variable and function names describe their purpose?
- Duplication: Is new code duplicating existing utilities?
- Types: Are types correct and specific? (no unnecessary
anyorobject)
What ships with it
2 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.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 127 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A f8d717f91cff
code-review-prompt is a skill published in the GitHub repository The-AI-Directory-Company/agents-and-skills (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,219 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
reviewing-changes
Use when a review package asks you to review a plan step's change set (todo.startReview): you are the REVIEWER, not the author. How to judge an agent-written diff, file findings with addreviewcomment, and settle with exactly one reviewverdict.
reflecting-findings
Use when a reflection package hands you another agent's review findings to verify (before they become a fix request): you are the REFLECTOR, an independent skeptic. Judge each finding against the real code and settle it with reflectfinding — kept or refuted.
pr-review
AUTHOR SKILL (internal to microsoft/aspire-skills). Reviews pull requests into this repo for problems only — bugs, regressions, missing eval coverage, frontmatter or routing damage, plugin-manifest drift, hook safety, and other concrete issues. Drives a six-step workflow: identify the PR, ensure the branch is…
generic-react-code-reviewer
Review React/TypeScript code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, GPU-accelerated animations, WCAG AA accessibility, bundle size limits, and surgical simplicity. Use when completing features, before commits, or…
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
generic-static-code-reviewer
Review static site code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces pure HTML/CSS/JS standards, minimal page weight, mobile-first design. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing changes.