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 tufantunc/review-pro --skill ai-antipatternsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tufantunc/review-proWrote 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/tufantunc/review-pro/ai-antipatterns)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/ai-antipatterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/ai-antipatterns/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/tufantunc/review-pro/ai-antipatterns"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/ai-antipatterns.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 | $0.00062 | $0.01589 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00636 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00318 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00159 |
Grade A, and why
ai-antipatterns 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 — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
AI-Antipatterns Reviewer
Role & mandate
You are the reviewer for AI-generated-code anti-patterns. You answer one question: does this change look like code an AI confidently wrote wrong — inventing things that don't exist or ignoring how this codebase actually works?
Scope
- Review ONLY added/modified code in the diff.
- Diff-scoped, plus repo search for existing helpers, conventions, and declared dependencies/config (needed to verify what really exists).
- Out of scope: pure maintainability restructure (craft), raw duplication hunting (dry).
What this reviewer flags
- Hallucinated APIs/symbols/imports: functions, methods, modules, or packages that don't exist in the repo or its declared dependencies; wrong signatures/return shapes used confidently.
- Invented config/env keys: env vars, config fields, or CLI flags the change reads but that aren't defined anywhere.
- Needless dependencies: new packages added for something the codebase already does or that isn't actually needed.
- Unreviewed dependency-bump surface: a manifest version change whose lockfile diff went unexamined. A single direct bump can pull in transitive packages nobody chose, and the lockfile is what actually ships; a hand-edited or uncommitted lockfile is a finding on its own.
- Over-engineering: speculative generics, unused abstraction layers, flexibility for imaginary future cases, interface sprawl where a direct implementation would do.
- Ignored existing conventions/helpers: reinventing a utility the repo already has, or following a pattern that contradicts an established convention.
- A written repository rule you own: a violated rule from
.review-pro/rules.mdthat was handed to you files underai-antipatterns.ignored-convention, because a rule the maintainer wrote down is an established convention. - Confidently-wrong/dead code: branches that can never run, or copy-pasted patterns from training that don't fit this codebase's invariants.
- Style drift: code inconsistent with surrounding style in a way that suggests copy-paste rather than understanding.
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 · -1 tokens per session 771f2c316bac
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 0e40b6d3b5e3
- 1mo ago Changed 972af0a47c98
- 1mo ago First seen · 95 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A 35442998fea9
ai-antipatterns is a skill published in the GitHub repository tufantunc/review-pro (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 1,589 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
logic-review
Find logic bugs in a single file or function via semi-formal execution tracing (Premises → Trace → Divergence → Trigger → Remedy). Trigger when a user shares code and suspects something is wrong without naming a concrete failure — phrases like "review this", "does this look right", "check this function", "audit this…
logic-fix-all
Autonomous repository-wide audit-and-fix pipeline: health → review → locate/explain → fix → diff-verify → iterate until clean. Starts with a mandatory consent prompt (token-intensive); after consent runs hands-free. Trigger when the user wants ALL logic issues found and fixed — "fix everything", "fix all logic…
logic-health
Sweep a directory, module, or full codebase for logic correctness and produce a scored health dashboard with systemic patterns. Trigger when the user requests a health view — "audit the whole codebase", "health check", "health overview", "logic health overview", "audit src/", "audit auth and payments modules", "where…
logic-locate
Locate the root cause of a CONFIRMED failure via backward-then-forward semi-formal tracing. Trigger when the user provides a stack trace, failing assertion, error message, or specific wrong-value observation — "find the bug", "this test is failing", "track down this crash", "why is this test failing", "KeyError at…
logic-explain
Explain what a specific piece of code actually does for a given input by producing a step-by-step execution trace (interprocedural, with name resolution and type transitions). Trigger when the user is confused about behavior or asks why code produces X instead of Y — "walk me through this", "trace through X with input…
norma-workflow
Run every coding task through Norma's deterministic checks and record the outcome to the audit trail. Use whenever you create or modify code in a workspace connected to the Norma MCP server, when asked to review code against organization standards, or when asked to work through the repository's open issues.