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 trilwu/secskills --skill reviewing-code-changesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/trilwu/secskillsWrote 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/trilwu/secskills/reviewing-code-changes)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/trilwu/secskills/reviewing-code-changes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/trilwu/secskills/reviewing-code-changes/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/trilwu/secskills/reviewing-code-changes"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/trilwu/secskills/reviewing-code-changes.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Tool Misuse · line 67 Tool defaults are unsafe or overly permissive (e.g. disabled TLS verification, no authentication, world-writable permissions). Unsafe defaults widen the attack surface.Fix: Override unsafe defaults with secure settings (verify=True, auth required, restrictive permissions). Review and harden all tool configurations.
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 | $0.00072 | $0.02159 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00864 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00432 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00216 |
Grade A, and why
reviewing-code-changes scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 215 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reviewing Code Changes
Reviewing a diff is not auditing a codebase in miniature. The diff shows you what changed but hides what the change means — the caller that now receives untrusted data, the check that used to run, the assumption that no longer holds. Reviewing only the added lines is the standard way to miss the bug.
When to Use
- Security review of a pull request, branch, or commit range
- Pre-commit or pre-merge check on your own changes
- Assessing risk of a dependency bump or config change
- Reviewing an AI-generated change before it ships
When NOT to Use
- Whole-codebase audit — use
auditing-code-for-vulnerabilities - Runtime testing of the deployed change — use the relevant testing skill
- Dependency/CI changes as the main subject — use
auditing-supply-chain
Get the Real Diff First
# Against the actual merge base, not against whatever HEAD happens to be
BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD origin/main)
git diff --stat $BASE...HEAD
git diff $BASE...HEAD
# Rename and whitespace noise hides real changes
git diff -M -C -w $BASE...HEAD
# Files changed most, and by whom — where to spend attention
git diff --numstat $BASE...HEAD | sort -rn | head -20
Three things to establish before reading code:
- What is this change trying to do? Read the PR description and the tests. A security review without the intent is pattern matching.
- Does the diff match the description? Unexplained files — a config change, a new dependency, a workflow edit riding along with a feature — are the highest-signal thing in a review.
- What is the change's exposure? A change to an unauthenticated request path deserves an order of magnitude more attention than an internal refactor.
Triage: Where to Spend the Review
Not all diffs deserve equal time. Rank hunks by what they touch:
| Priority | Signals |
|---|---|
| Critical | Auth/authz logic, session handling, crypto, input parsing on an untrusted boundary, SQL/command/template construction, file path handling, deserialization, CI/CD workflows, IAM/security-group config, dependency additions |
| High | New endpoints or routes, new tool/RPC surface, error handling on security paths, logging of user data, tenant scoping, cache keys, rate limits |
| Medium | Business logic that consumes validated input, refactors that move security-relevant code |
| Low | Tests, docs, formatting, comments — but read test deletions |
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 First seen · 215 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 34d0987e33a2
reviewing-code-changes is a skill published in the GitHub repository trilwu/secskills (164 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 2,159 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
agent-watchdog
Use when asked to watch, babysit, audit, review, compare, or fix another agent's work from a Codex session ID, Claude Code session/transcript, chat/thread link, PR, branch, log, or pasted run summary. Monitor until the other agent is done or blocked, reconstruct what the user asked, independently investigate the same…
comet-verify
Comet Phase 4: Verify and Close. Invoke with /comet-verify. Verify implementation matches design, handle development branch.
find-simplifications
Use when asked to find or plan Cherry Studio cleanup, simplification, refactoring, dead-code removal, duplicated state removal, unnecessary APIs, speculative generality, or library replacements, especially when the result should become evidence-backed proposed Agent Notes.
no-comments
Spawn Comment Sicko, fix accepted findings, and offer encodings for claimed constraints.
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
graphify-dotnet
Use graphify-dotnet to generate codebase knowledge graphs, architecture snapshots, and exportable repository maps from .NET or polyglot source trees, with optional AI-enriched semantic relationships. USE FOR: graphify commands; graph JSON, HTML, SVG, Cypher, Markdown, and Obsidian exports; repository map and…