code-review-graph is a local-first code intelligence graph that builds a persistent structural map of a codebase and supplies relevant context to AI coding tools through MCP and a CLI. It is used for code review and large-repository workflows, with catalogue add-ons providing integrations and instructions for operating it.
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 tirth8205/code-review-graph --skill refactor-safelygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tirth8205/code-review-graphWrote 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/tirth8205/code-review-graph/refactor-safely)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tirth8205/code-review-graph/refactor-safely"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tirth8205/code-review-graph/refactor-safely/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/tirth8205/code-review-graph/refactor-safely"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tirth8205/code-review-graph/refactor-safely.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- 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 | $0.00015 | $0.00315 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00126 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00063 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00032 |
Grade A, and why
refactor-safely 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- refactor-safely — 100% identical, 27 lines differ
What it actually says
Refactor Safely
Plan a refactor from the dependency graph and apply renames from a preview.
Steps
- Call
refactor_toolwithmode="suggest"for refactoring candidates, ormode="dead_code"for unreferenced code. - For a rename, call
refactor_toolwithmode="rename",old_nameandnew_name. Check the returned edit list before applying. - Call
apply_refactor_toolwith the returnedrefactor_idto apply the rename. - Before a large refactor, call
get_impact_radius_toolandget_affected_flows_toolto see the dependents and critical paths involved. - Call
find_large_functions_toolto find functions worth splitting. - After the change, call
detect_changes_toolto confirm the impact matches the plan.
Token Efficiency Rules
- Call
get_minimal_context_tool(task="<your task>")before any other graph tool. - Pass
detail_level="minimal"wherever a tool accepts it. Use "standard" only when minimal is not enough. - Prefer a targeted
query_graph_toolcall over a broad listing call. - Budget: about five tool calls and 800 tokens of graph output per task.
- Read the implementation and its tests before changing code. The graph narrows scope; it does not replace the source.
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 Changed · -5 lines 4b8aeb462113
- 1mo ago First seen · 30 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 95e60c797d62
refactor-safely is a skill published in the GitHub repository tirth8205/code-review-graph (32,175 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 315 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
cross-model-review
A second-opinion code review that asks a different AI model to independently inspect a change, then compares both reviews. It focuses on logic, security, consistency, and omissions.
gitnexus
A code-graph analysis add-on for examining an existing codebase, including symbols, call paths, execution flows, and effects across repositories. It can query GitNexus through its command-line or MCP interfaces.
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
pre-landing-review
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when explicitly asked for the specialized pre-landing workflow. Product /review requests are handled by OpenBitFun's unified Review mechanism instead.…