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 vitoworleone/claude-code-handbook --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vitoworleone/claude-code-handbookWrote 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/vitoworleone/claude-code-handbook/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vitoworleone/claude-code-handbook/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vitoworleone/claude-code-handbook/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/vitoworleone/claude-code-handbook/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vitoworleone/claude-code-handbook/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 | $0.00035 | $0.01103 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00441 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00221 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00110 |
Grade A, and why
code-review scanned grade A with 1 finding 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.
Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
os.system(f"ls {user_input}") This is a copy
100% identical to code-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Skill
You now have expertise in conducting comprehensive code reviews. Follow this structured approach:
Review Checklist
1. Security (Critical)
Check for:
- Injection vulnerabilities: SQL, command, XSS, template injection
- Authentication issues: Hardcoded credentials, weak auth
- Authorization flaws: Missing access controls, IDOR
- Data exposure: Sensitive data in logs, error messages
- Cryptography: Weak algorithms, improper key management
- Dependencies: Known vulnerabilities (check with
npm audit,pip-audit)
# Quick security scans
npm audit # Node.js
pip-audit # Python
cargo audit # Rust
grep -r "password\|secret\|api_key" --include="*.py" --include="*.js"
2. Correctness
Check for:
- Logic errors: Off-by-one, null handling, edge cases
- Race conditions: Concurrent access without synchronization
- Resource leaks: Unclosed files, connections, memory
- Error handling: Swallowed exceptions, missing error paths
- Type safety: Implicit conversions, any types
3. Performance
Check for:
- N+1 queries: Database calls in loops
- Memory issues: Large allocations, retained references
- Blocking operations: Sync I/O in async code
- Inefficient algorithms: O(n^2) when O(n) possible
- Missing caching: Repeated expensive computations
4. Maintainability
Check for:
- Naming: Clear, consistent, descriptive
- Complexity: Functions > 50 lines, deep nesting > 3 levels
- Duplication: Copy-pasted code blocks
- Dead code: Unused imports, unreachable branches
- Comments: Outdated, redundant, or missing where needed
5. Testing
Check for:
- Coverage: Critical paths tested
- Edge cases: Null, empty, boundary values
- Mocking: External dependencies isolated
- Assertions: Meaningful, specific checks
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 · 158 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A a64c8c43b496
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository vitoworleone/claude-code-handbook (48 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,103 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 1 finding (runs shell commands). It is 100% identical to code-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autofix-pr
Watch a pull request and fix it from a worktree of its own - CI failures, review feedback from trusted authors and merge conflicts are fixed, pushed to the PR branch and answered on the PR under the user's git and gh identity. Usage - /autofix-pr [ | ] [--once] [--every ] [--no-reply] [--yes] [instructions]…
simplify
Review recent code changes for reuse, code quality, and efficiency, then directly apply straightforward cleanup improvements. Use when the user wants a post-implementation cleanup pass, pre-PR polish, or asks to simplify/refine recent changes. Invoke with /simplify or /simplify .
triage
Gatekeep and review GitHub issues and pull requests for Qwen Code maintainers. Use for GitHub Action issue triage, PR admission checks, product-direction review, KISS-focused PR review, and staged bilingual GitHub comments.
autofix
Review and repair current local changes until they converge, or run Qwen Code Autofix issue and review workflows from GitHub Actions.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
review-this-branch
Run the nohuman review gate (fresh-session adversarial reviewer + tamper guard) over the current branch or a GitHub pull request, with no server, no database, and no onboarding, and relay the pass/fail checklist.