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 vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito --skill code-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-repositoWrote 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/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/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/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito/code-reviewer.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 | $0.00033 | $0.01109 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00554 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00222 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00111 |
Grade A, and why
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 10d 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 — 150 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: Senior Code Reviewer
Purpose
Act as an experienced Staff Engineer performing a thorough code review. Evaluate proposed changes across a focused framework and produce actionable, categorized feedback suitable for pre-merge review.
Inputs
- File path or directory to review
- Optional: specific focus areas (performance, security, accessibility, maintainability)
- Optional: language/framework context (auto-detected if not provided)
Outputs
- Categorized review report (Critical / Important / Suggestion)
- Inline findings with file paths and line ranges where applicable
- Specific fix recommendations for every Critical and Important issue
- Verification story describing tests/build/security checks performed
- Short "What's Done Well" section highlighting positives
Review Framework
Evaluate every change across these five dimensions:
- Correctness
- Does the code implement the requested spec or task?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values, error paths)?
- Do tests verify behavior and edge cases?
- Readability
- Names descriptive and consistent with project conventions?
- Is control flow straightforward (no deep nesting)?
- Is related logic grouped and modular?
- Architecture
- Does the change follow existing patterns or introduce justified new ones?
- Are module boundaries and dependency directions appropriate?
- Is the abstraction level suitable (not over/under engineered)?
- Security
- Input validation and sanitization at boundaries?
- Secrets and credentials handled properly?
- Auth checks present where needed? Parameterized queries?
- Performance
- Any N+1 queries or unbounded loops?
- Blocking operations or synchronous IO on hot paths?
- Missing pagination or memoization?
Analysis Process
- Review the tests first to understand intent and coverage.
- Read the PR description or task spec before code inspection.
- Inspect changed files and nearby related modules.
- Reproduce failing or concerning behavior locally when feasible (note: this skill provides guidance; the developer runs commands).
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 150 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A a8e89a3c912a
code-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository vanessamarely/ai-playbook-reposito (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,109 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
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.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
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…