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-open-agent/oss-skills --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/the-open-agent/oss-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-open-agent/oss-skills/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/the-open-agent/oss-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/the-open-agent/oss-skills/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/the-open-agent/oss-skills/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/the-open-agent/oss-skills/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 | $0.00118 | $0.02279 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00047 | $0.00912 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00456 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00228 |
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 — 192 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Maintainer-Grade Code Review
An open-source review does two things at once: it protects the codebase, and it decides whether this person contributes again. Most reviews are competent at the first and terrible at the second.
Read in this order
Never start at the diff. Start at intent.
- The linked issue. Was this problem agreed to be worth solving? A perfect implementation of an unwanted feature must be closed, and it is far kinder to discover that in the first minute than the fortieth.
- The PR description. What does the author claim it does?
- The tests. They tell you what the author believes the behavior is. Read them before the implementation — you will review the implementation more honestly.
- The public API diff. New exports, changed signatures, changed defaults, changed
error types. This is where irreversible mistakes live (see
api-design). - The implementation.
- What's missing — docs, changelog entry, migration note, the test for the error path they did not think about.
gh pr checkout 123
gh pr diff 123 --name-only # scope at a glance
gh pr view 123 --json title,body,additions,deletions,files,author
make test # run it locally; CI green is necessary, not sufficient
Severity, stated explicitly
Unlabeled feedback makes contributors guess which comments block the merge. Prefix every comment:
| Prefix | Meaning | Author must |
|---|---|---|
| blocking: | Must change before merge | Fix it |
| question: | I don't understand yet | Answer; may resolve to nothing |
| suggestion: | Better, but your call | Decide |
| nit: | Style/taste, non-blocking | Ignore freely |
| praise: | This is good | Nothing — but say it anyway |
Reserve blocking for: correctness bugs, security issues, data loss, breaking changes without a migration path, missing tests on new behavior, and public API mistakes. Everything else is a suggestion. A review where every comment is blocking is a rewrite request wearing a costume.
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 · 192 lines · 118 tokens per session scan A 2ace699d9aca
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository the-open-agent/oss-skills (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 118 tokens to every session and 2,279 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
cn-check
Install and run the Continue CLI (cn) to execute AI agent checks on local code changes. Use when asked to "run checks", "lint with AI", "review my changes with cn", or set up Continue CI locally.
mindos
MindOS: local knowledge assistant & shared KB. Keeps decisions, notes, SOPs, debugging lessons, research findings, preferences across sessions/agents. Core: save notes, search KB, organize files, run workflows, review, append CSV, hand off context, distill lessons. NOT for app source or paths outside KB. Triggers…
superlint
This skill describes the mandatory standard operating procedure for using our internal SuperLint tool. Use this when tasks require fixing code quality issues according to corporate standards.
pr-review
Review a GitHub pull request and post one formal review — advance the existing discussion and give precision-first, high-signal feedback. Judgement on the diff, not a build gate — CI validates that it builds, and a targeted probe is allowed as evidence. Use when asked to review a PR or on a cron PR scan.
PR Etiquette
This skill should be used when responding to maintainer review feedback, writing or reviewing PR descriptions, following up on dormant PRs, validating PR quality before submission, or deciding how to communicate with maintainers. Sibling to oss-contribution and contribution-ethics.
pr-comment
Answer a maintainer's question about an open PR with concrete, code-cited evidence. The PR-side counterpart to issue-comment — for questions tied to the diff, not a full review.