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 vikisingh23/neuraforge-ai --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vikisingh23/neuraforge-aiWrote 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/vikisingh23/neuraforge-ai/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vikisingh23/neuraforge-ai/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vikisingh23/neuraforge-ai/code-review/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/vikisingh23/neuraforge-ai/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vikisingh23/neuraforge-ai/code-review.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 | $0.00026 | $0.00284 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00142 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00057 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00028 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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 5d 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.
What it actually says
enterprise Code Review
Review code against enterprise Rulebook standards. Auto-detects the stack.
Instructions
- Detect the stack from file extension and project structure
- Load the appropriate reviewer:
.csfiles → Readagents/dotnet-reviewer.md.tsfiles with@nestjs→ Readagents/nestjs-reviewer.md.tsxfiles with React → Readagents/react-reviewer.md.tsxfiles with React Native → Readagents/rn-reviewer.md.dartfiles → Readagents/flutter-reviewer.md
- Load shared rules:
core/NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md,security/SECURITY_GUIDELINES.md - Score 0-100. Critical/Major/Minor/Suggestions format
- Check architecture: thin controllers, no god classes, reuse existing, composition over inheritance
- Check empathy: loading/error/empty states, financial formatting, a11y
- Check testing: tests exist for all components/services
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 29 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A f21680943e8b
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository vikisingh23/neuraforge-ai (4 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 284 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
audit
Use before releases, after large PRs, or during onboarding to run a single read-only analysis of a codebase's quality, risk, and design. The one analysis front door. Reads the glossary to resolve a selector that zooms across three layers — track, aspect, family/category/entity — then delegates to the oop-orchestrator…
improve
Use after /audit flags problem areas, or directly on a smell/antipattern/family, to apply the smallest corrective refactor and verify it with the project's own detected commands. The FIX action reached from the audit report's Recommended Actions handoff (/fix-risks ). Resolves the selection against the glossary and…
glossary
Use to look up the canonical name, category, family, principle, signs, and severity of any code smell, antipattern, vulnerability, supply-chain risk, or design pattern this plugin recognizes. Read-only reference: resolve an entity by id, list every entity in a family or category, or check which corrective patterns fix…
critic
Two-step self-review at every task lifecycle phase. Step 1 (this skill) runs in-context to gather session signals — files read vs grepped, user pushback, build evidence, degradation signs. Step 2 launches a forked subagent for unbiased code/plan review with fresh eyes. Combined report classifies findings as hard…
plugin-product-standards
Technical product expert specializing in platform engineering, DevOps, and AI dev tools. Critically reviews the SDD plugin for DX issues, inconsistencies, and gaps.
recipe-front-review
Reviews completed frontend implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applies user-approved React corrections.