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 TheWayWithin/agent-11 --skill code-review-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TheWayWithin/agent-11Wrote 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/thewaywithin/agent-11/code-review-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/thewaywithin/agent-11/code-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thewaywithin/agent-11/code-review-loop/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/thewaywithin/agent-11/code-review-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thewaywithin/agent-11/code-review-loop.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00076 | $0.02110 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00844 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00422 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00211 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-loop 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 — 164 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Loop
Capability
Run the canonical working loop from the loops/autoresearch research: a read-only critic scores a diff and raises evidence-backed findings, a read-write fixer addresses ONLY those findings, then the critic re-audits. Repeat until two consecutive clean rounds or a cap. The separation is the whole point — the thing that judges the code cannot edit the code, so it cannot pass the review by loosening it (the Sprint 6a read-only principle, applied to review).
Use Cases
- Reviewing a pull request to a converged, clean state.
- Hardening one changed file or surface before merge.
- Turning a pile of review comments into addressed-and-re-verified findings.
- Any "iterate until clean" task where "clean" is a checkable signal, not a vibe.
When NOT to use this skill
- No checkable signal for "done". If "good" is subjective taste with no test, gate, or rubric, a loop just burns tokens. Do a single review pass instead.
- Green-field authoring. This loop reviews and fixes an existing diff; it does not design features from scratch.
- Structural rewrites. The fixer addresses raised findings on a named surface. A loop will not invent an architecture change that needs a step backwards first.
- Unbounded scope. If every round surfaces a brand-new area, the surface is too big. Narrow it first.
The two roles (never the same agent on the same turn)
| Role | Tools | Model | Job |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critic | Read-only (Read, Grep, Bash for running checks — NO Edit/Write) | A different model to the fixer | Score the diff, raise findings with file:line + evidence. Never edits code. |
| Fixer | Read-write (Edit/Write on the named surface only) | The session default | Address ONLY the raised findings. Never edits the gate, the test, or the critic's rubric. |
Run the critic on a different model to the fixer. Read-only separates the incentives; a
different model separates the blind spots. A critic sharing the generator's weights inherits the
same assumptions and tends to return agreement rather than verification, so a same-model critic
scoring its own family's work is closer to a consistency check than a review. Switch with /model
between roles, set CLAUDE_CODE_SUBAGENT_MODEL, or pass opts.model if you are driving the loop
from a script. If only one model is available the loop still works and is still worth running: note
in the log that critic and fixer shared weights, and treat a clean round as weaker evidence.
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 · 164 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A 43568bfa0317
code-review-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository TheWayWithin/agent-11 (17 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 2,110 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
code-review
Two-mode skill: (1) adversarial review — spec compliance + code quality + security, confidence-scored findings with file:line evidence; (2) receiving review — verify-before- agreeing discipline for acting on external/human review feedback.
codebase-hygiene
Two-mode skill: (1) find semantic duplicates — functions doing the same thing under different names, invisible to copy-paste detectors; (2) deepen shallow modules — thin wrappers and pass-through layers that spread complexity. Advisory and read-only; changes route through BUILD with full gates.
dos-verify-done-claims
Before accepting an agent's 'done / shipped / fixed' claim, verify it against ground truth (git ancestry + the commit's own diff) using the DOS kernel's dos verify and dos commit-audit — never the agent's own narration.
clean-code-reviewer
Reviews code against Robert C. Martin's Clean Code principles. Use when users share code for review, ask for refactoring suggestions, or want to improve code quality. Produces actionable feedback organized by Clean Code principles with concrete before/after examples.
Code Review
Use this skill when reviewing a PR or a set of changes and you want a consistent, production-grade review pass: security first, then correctness, then performance, then style.
gsd-ns-review
Invoke this Pi skill with /skill:gsd-ns-review.