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 travisjneuman/.claude --skill generic-code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/travisjneuman/.claudeWrote 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/travisjneuman/.claude/generic-code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/travisjneuman/.claude/generic-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/travisjneuman/.claude/generic-code-reviewer/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/travisjneuman/.claude/generic-code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/travisjneuman/.claude/generic-code-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- 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 | $0.00070 | $0.00934 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00035 | $0.00467 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00187 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
generic-code-reviewer 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 — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Generic Code Reviewer
Review code against production quality standards. Adapts to any project's tech stack.
Full Standards: See Code Review Standards
CLAUDE.md Compliance
Always check the project's CLAUDE.md for specific rules.
Before ANY Commit:
- Task file exists in
tasks/[feature-name].md - All tests passing
- Type checking passing (if TypeScript)
- No console errors/warnings
- Bundle size within limits
Tech Stack Detection
| Detection | Stack | Key Checks |
|---|---|---|
| React in package.json | React/TS | Components, hooks, state |
| Next.js in package.json | Next.js | SSR, API routes |
| NestJS in package.json | NestJS | Guards, DTOs, services |
| .html files, no build | Vanilla | Semantic HTML, minimal JS |
| .py files | Python | Type hints, validation |
P0 Issues (Block Merge)
Security - Frontend
- Sanitize input (textContent, not innerHTML)
unknowntype for external data- No exposed API keys
- HTTPS for external requests
Security - Backend
- Input validation on all endpoints
- Auth on protected routes
- Parameterized queries (no raw SQL)
- Secrets in environment variables
Correctness
- Logic errors that break functionality
- Type errors in strict mode
- Unhandled promise rejections
P1 Issues (Should Fix)
Performance
| Project Type | Target |
|---|---|
| Static site | < 50KB (excluding media) |
| SPA/React | < 100KB gzipped initial |
| Full-stack | < 200KB gzipped initial |
Animation:
- GPU-accelerated only (transform, opacity)
- 60fps target
- Use requestAnimationFrame
Accessibility (WCAG AA)
- Focus indicators on interactive elements
- Keyboard navigation (Tab, Enter, Escape)
- Color contrast >= 4.5:1
- ARIA labels on icon-only buttons
- Alt text for meaningful images
- Semantic HTML structure
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 · 142 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A 03f8dc52fde7
generic-code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository travisjneuman/.claude (97 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 934 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
plan-review-architecture
Architecture-dimension reviewer for written plans. Use when running plan-review or directly when an architectural review is wanted. Activate for keywords like "architecture review", "data flow", "failure modes", "rollback", "edge cases", "test matrix". Scores 5 sub-dimensions 0-10, produces ranked fixes. Always cite…
code-review-loop
Use when opening a PR for review or when receiving review feedback. Activate for keywords like "code review", "PR review", "request review", "review feedback", "address comments", "reviewer said". Covers both ends of the loop: preparing a reviewable PR and acting on feedback rigorously. Always engage with every…
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
frontend-code-review
Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., .tsx, .ts, .js). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.
caveman-review
Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
pre-ship-review
Run a structured quality review before shipping code at any checkpoint such as PRs, releases, or milestones. Use whenever the user says.