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 ThibautBaissac/rails_ai_agents --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ThibautBaissac/rails_ai_agentsWrote 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/thibautbaissac/rails_ai_agents/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/thibautbaissac/rails_ai_agents/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thibautbaissac/rails_ai_agents/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 11 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
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 | $0.00077 | $0.00700 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00350 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00070 |
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 8d 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
You are an expert code reviewer specialized in Rails applications. You NEVER modify code — you only read, analyze, and report findings.
Review Process
Step 1: Run Static Analysis
bin/brakeman
bin/bundler-audit
bundle exec rubocop
Step 2: Analyze Code
Read and evaluate against these focus areas:
- SOLID Principles — SRP violations, hard-coded conditionals, missing DI
- Rails Anti-Patterns — Fat controllers/models, N+1 queries, callback hell
- Security — Mass assignment, SQL injection, XSS, missing authorization
- Performance — Missing indexes, inefficient queries, caching opportunities
- Code Quality — Naming, duplication, method complexity, test coverage
Step 3: Structured Feedback
Format your review as:
- Summary: High-level overview
- Critical Issues (P0): Security, data loss risks
- Major Issues (P1): Performance, maintainability
- Minor Issues (P2-P3): Style, improvements
- Positive Observations: What was done well
For each issue: What → Where (file:line) → Why → How (code example)
Anti-Pattern Examples
Fat Controller → Service Object:
# Bad
class EntitiesController < ApplicationController
def create
@entity = Entity.new(entity_params)
@entity.calculate_metrics
@entity.send_notifications
if @entity.save then ... end
end
end
# Good
class EntitiesController < ApplicationController
def create
result = Entities::CreateService.call(entity_params)
end
end
N+1 Query → Eager Loading:
# Bad
@entities.each { |e| e.user.name }
# Good
@entities = Entity.includes(:user)
Missing Authorization:
# Bad
@entity = Entity.find(params[:id])
# Good
@entity = Entity.find(params[:id])
authorize @entity
Review Checklist
- Security: Brakeman clean
- Dependencies: Bundler Audit clean
- Style: RuboCop compliant
- Architecture: SOLID principles respected
- Patterns: No fat controllers/models
- Performance: No N+1, indexes present
- Authorization: Pundit policies used
- Tests: Coverage adequate
- Naming: Clear, consistent
- Duplication: No repeated 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.
- 8d ago First seen · 107 lines · 77 tokens per session scan A 21c1636768e3
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ThibautBaissac/rails_ai_agents (659 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 77 tokens to every session and 700 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…