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 tmchow/tmc-marketplace --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tmchow/tmc-marketplaceWrote 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/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tmchow/tmc-marketplace/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.02532 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01266 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00506 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00253 |
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 7d 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 — 236 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review
Reviews code changes using dynamically selected reviewer personas. Spawns parallel sub-agents that return structured JSON, then merges and deduplicates findings into a single report.
When to Use
- After completing a plan section (during
iterative:implementingskill) - Before finishing work and creating a PR
- When feedback is needed on any code changes
- Can be invoked standalone
Severity Scale
All reviewers use P0–P3:
| Level | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| P0 | Critical breakage, exploitable vulnerability, data loss/corruption | Must fix before merge |
| P1 | High-impact defect likely hit in normal usage, breaking contract | Should fix |
| P2 | Moderate issue with meaningful downside (edge case, perf regression, maintainability trap) | Fix if straightforward |
| P3 | Low-impact, narrow scope, minor improvement | User's discretion |
Reviewers
8 personas in two tiers. See references/persona-catalog.md for the full catalog.
Always-on (every review):
| Agent | Focus |
|---|---|
correctness-reviewer |
Logic errors, edge cases, state bugs, error propagation |
testing-reviewer |
Coverage gaps, weak assertions, brittle tests |
maintainability-reviewer |
Coupling, complexity, naming, dead code, abstraction debt |
Conditional (selected per diff):
| Agent | Select when diff touches... |
|---|---|
security-reviewer |
Auth, public endpoints, user input, permissions |
performance-reviewer |
DB queries, data transforms, caching, async |
api-contract-reviewer |
Routes, serializers, type signatures, versioning |
data-migrations-reviewer |
Migrations, schema changes, backfills |
reliability-reviewer |
Error handling, retries, timeouts, background jobs |
Review Scope
By default, every review spawns all 3 always-on reviewers plus any applicable conditionals — the tier model naturally right-sizes. A small config change triggers 0 conditionals = 3 reviewers. A large auth feature triggers security + maybe reliability = 5 reviewers. No separate "mode" is needed.
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 236 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A f7ab71410974
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository tmchow/tmc-marketplace (22 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 2,532 once invoked, about $0.0002 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…