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 review-prgit 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/review-pr)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tirth8205/code-review-graph/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tirth8205/code-review-graph/review-pr/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/review-pr"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tirth8205/code-review-graph/review-pr.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 | $0.00027 | $0.00440 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00176 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00088 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
review-pr 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.
What it actually says
Review PR
Review all commits of a pull request or branch against its base branch.
Steps
- Identify the changes. With a branch name run
git diff --name-only main...<branch>; otherwise diff the current branch againstmain(ormaster). Use that ref asbasebelow. - Call
get_minimal_context_tool(task="review PR", base="main"). If it returnsstatus: not_ready, callbuild_or_update_graph_tool()and continue. - Call
detect_changes_tool(base="main", detail_level="minimal")for risk-scored changed functions, test gaps and affected flows across the whole branch. - For high-risk functions call
query_graph_tool(pattern="callers_of", target="<function>")andquery_graph_tool(pattern="tests_for", target="<function>"). Flag public API changes whose callers were not updated. - Call
get_review_context_tool(base="main")for source snippets, orget_impact_radius_tool(base="main")for the full dependent list, only when step 3 leaves a high-risk item unclear. - Read the changed source of the highest-impact files first. Do not load whole files unless the change needs it.
Output
## PR Review: <title>
### Summary
<1-3 sentences>
### Risk
- Overall: Low / Medium / High
- Blast radius: <n> files, <m> functions
- Test coverage: <covered> of <changed> changed functions
### Files
#### <path>
- Changes: <what>
- Impact: <who depends on it>
- Issues: <bugs, style, concerns>
### Missing Tests
- <function> in <file>
### Recommendations
1. <action>
Tips
- Use
semantic_search_nodes_toolto find related code the PR may have missed.
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 · -18 lines c7e47dc757db
- 1mo ago First seen · 67 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A d48249a140cc
review-pr is a skill published in the GitHub repository tirth8205/code-review-graph (32,285 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 440 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.…