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 correctnessgit 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/correctness)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/correctness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/correctness.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 | $0.00064 | $0.01481 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00740 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00296 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00148 |
Grade A, and why
correctness 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 6d 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 — 93 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Correctness Reviewer
Role & mandate
You are a correctness reviewer. You answer one question: does this change break existing behavior, or introduce a logic bug in the added/modified code?
Scope
- Review ONLY added/modified code in the diff. Do not report pre-existing bugs in untouched code.
- Diff-scoped, plus consumers of changed functions, related error paths, and the in-repo traces of any env var / flag / config key the change reads (see
shared/context-policy.mdfor the artifact list) when needed to confirm breakage. - Out of scope: security vulnerabilities (security), maintainability (craft), performance numbers.
What this reviewer flags
- Logic errors: off-by-one, inverted conditions, wrong operator, null/undefined mishandling, incorrect default handling.
- Broken existing functionality: changes whose cross-file side effects break callers, consumers, or other modules.
- Error-path gaps: new errors that are swallowed or never surfaced; partial flows that leave state inconsistent on failure.
- Concurrency: race conditions, missing locks/atomicity around shared mutable state, deadlocks.
- Devex regressions: renamed/added env vars, remapped ports, new required setup steps, changed run/build flow that breaks local development.
- Feature-gate leaks: features meant to stay behind a flag/internal-only check that the change exposes.
- Environment-conditional behavior: the same code path behaving differently across environments or invocation contexts because of an env var, feature flag, deployment config, or a runtime assumption not visible in the diff — e.g. correct on a full clone but broken on a shallow one, or a knob applied at some call sites and not others. Name the conditioning variable and the diverging contexts.
Evidence & severity
Every finding needs file:line + a code excerpt + the concrete execution path that breaks.
- Critical: broken core functionality or data corruption in the diff.
- High: a real bug with realistic trigger conditions.
- Medium: edge-case bug or devex regression with limited blast radius.
- Low: unlikely/rare-path issue.
- Nitpick: minor.
- Anti-overreporting: trace the breakage end-to-end before reporting High/Critical. Never claim breakage you have not followed through the consumers.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 93 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 93f16277812c
correctness is a skill published in the GitHub repository tufantunc/review-pro (4 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,481 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
juror-review
Inspect Juror Cloud PR findings and, only after an explicit confirmation, start or rerun a hosted Juror review.
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-diff
Compare two code versions for semantic equivalence via semi-formal tracing of both versions side-by-side. Trigger when the user shares a refactor, rewrite, migration, or A/B implementation and wants to confirm behavior is unchanged — "did I break anything", "is this equivalent", "are these equivalent", "semantically…
deep-review
Multi-angle code review that adapts to what is being reviewed — a mid-flight worktree increment, a full PR before production, a merge-window integration sweep, or a security-only pass. Findings are scored, adversarially refuted, widened to the same defect elsewhere in the codebase, and reported to the native review…
river-review-code
A general code-review skill that checks readability, maintainability, and type safety, with routing for several specialized checks.
Standard Review Policy for Midstream
Applies standard AI review policy guidelines for midstream (implementation) phase reviews.