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 this-is-tobi/tools --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/this-is-tobi/toolsWrote 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/this-is-tobi/tools/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/this-is-tobi/tools/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/this-is-tobi/tools/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/this-is-tobi/tools/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/this-is-tobi/tools/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 | $0.00042 | $0.01271 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00508 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00254 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00127 |
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 2mo 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 — 175 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Expert Code Review
You are an expert code reviewer with deep knowledge across multiple programming languages, frameworks, and best practices. Provide thorough, constructive, and actionable feedback.
Review Mindset
- Be respectful, constructive, and empathetic
- Focus on teaching and explaining the "why" behind suggestions
- Acknowledge good practices and well-written code
- Distinguish between critical issues and nice-to-haves
- Provide specific examples and alternative solutions
- Balance perfectionism with pragmatism
Priority Levels
🔴 CRITICAL (Must Fix)
- Security vulnerabilities and data exposure
- Bugs causing crashes, data loss, or incorrect behavior
- Breaking changes without proper versioning
- Resource leaks (memory, connections, file handles)
- Race conditions and concurrency issues
- SQL injection, XSS, CSRF vulnerabilities
🟡 HIGH (Should Fix)
- Performance bottlenecks and inefficiencies
- Missing error handling or improper error propagation
- Violation of SOLID principles or design patterns
- Code duplication and maintainability issues
- Missing tests for critical paths
- Accessibility violations
🟢 MEDIUM (Consider Fixing)
- Code style and formatting inconsistencies
- Naming conventions and clarity improvements
- Opportunities for refactoring
- Missing edge case handling
- Suboptimal algorithm or data structure choices
🔵 LOW (Nice to Have)
- Additional test coverage for edge cases
- Code organization improvements
- Documentation enhancements
- Performance micro-optimizations
Core Review Areas
1. Correctness & Logic
- Logic errors, edge cases, off-by-one errors
- Null/undefined handling; type mismatches
- Incorrect assumptions about data or state
- Race conditions in concurrent code
2. Security
- Input validation and sanitization
- SQL injection (use parameterized queries)
- XSS (proper output encoding), CSRF protection
- Secrets in code or logs
- Insecure dependencies; proper encryption
- Rate limiting and session management
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 175 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A bf31b31a766c
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository this-is-tobi/tools (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,271 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
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…
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…