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 tlangridge/agent-swarm --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tlangridge/agent-swarmWrote 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/tlangridge/agent-swarm/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tlangridge/agent-swarm/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tlangridge/agent-swarm/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/tlangridge/agent-swarm/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tlangridge/agent-swarm/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 | $0.00026 | $0.00591 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00236 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00059 |
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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Checklist
When reviewing code changes, evaluate each area systematically.
1. Correctness
- Does the code do what the task/spec requires?
- Are edge cases handled (empty inputs, null values, boundary conditions)?
- Are off-by-one errors avoided in loops and array access?
- Is async/await used correctly (no missing awaits, no unhandled promise rejections)?
- Are return types and values correct?
- Do conditional branches cover all cases?
2. Style and Readability
- Does the code follow existing project conventions and patterns?
- Are variable and function names descriptive and consistent?
- Is there unnecessary duplication that should be extracted?
- Are complex sections commented with "why" not "what"?
- Is the code organized logically (related functions grouped, clear module boundaries)?
3. Performance
- Are there unnecessary loops or repeated computations?
- Are database/file operations batched where possible?
- Are there potential memory leaks (unclosed resources, growing collections)?
- Is data fetched efficiently (no N+1 queries, appropriate pagination)?
- Are expensive operations cached when results are reused?
4. Security
- Is user input validated and sanitized?
- Are secrets kept out of source code (using env vars, not hardcoded)?
- Are file paths validated to prevent path traversal?
- Is authentication/authorization checked where required?
- Are SQL/command injection vectors avoided?
5. Error Handling
- Are errors caught and handled appropriately (not silently swallowed)?
- Do error messages provide enough context for debugging?
- Are resources cleaned up in error paths (try/finally, using patterns)?
- Are external service failures handled gracefully (timeouts, retries, fallbacks)?
- Are error types specific enough for callers to handle differently?
6. Testing
- Are new features covered by tests?
- Do tests cover both happy path and error cases?
- Are tests independent and not relying on shared mutable state?
- Do test names clearly describe what they verify?
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 · 67 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 573ddd859288
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository tlangridge/agent-swarm (5 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 591 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 2026-08-31.
code-review compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| code-reviewtlangridge/agent-swarm | Skill | 5 | 8mo ago | MIT | A | 26 | Claude Code |
| autoreviewopenclaw/clawhub | Skill | 9.5k | today | MIT | A | 17 | Claude Code, Codex |
| agent-teams-simplify-and-hardenLeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills | Skill | 2.2k | 2d ago | MIT | A | 115 | Claude Code, Codex |
| omh-code-reviewrlaope/oh-my-hermes | Skill | 5.2k | yesterday | MIT | A | 48 | Claude Code, Codex |
| revdiff-planumputun/revdiff | Skill | 947 | 3d ago | MIT | A | 84 | Claude Code |
| explore-unknownsdzhng/skills | Skill | 1.4k | yesterday | MIT | A | 162 | Claude Code, Codex |
| re0-mergeLilMGenius/paperthin | Skill | 1.4k | today | MIT | A | 70 | Claude Code |