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 volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents --skill code-review-disciplinegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agentsWrote 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/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents/code-review-discipline)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents/code-review-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents/code-review-discipline/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/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents/code-review-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents/code-review-discipline.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 | $0.00072 | $0.03546 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.01773 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00709 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00355 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-discipline scanned grade A with 2 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Makes network callslowCapability
Not a fault in itself. Listed so you know the mod talks to something, and to what.
| REST endpoint | `curl` from staging (creds in `$KB_DIR/kb/verify.md`) hitting the actual endpoint — happy path AND one error path | request line + response status + response body excerpt (PII redacted) | Runs shell commandslowCapability
Expected in a hook, worth knowing in a rule or an instructions file.
- Command injection: avoid `os.system()` / `subprocess(shell=True)` with user input How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 284 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review Discipline
This skill defines how the reviewer produces a final REVIEW that catches problems missed by upstream agents and validates end-to-end coherence. Inspired by:
- OWASP Top 10 (2021 edition) — the de-facto security review baseline
- SOLID principles (Robert C. Martin) — code quality / maintainability lens
- Google Engineering Practices — code review patterns (small CLs, what to look for, fast turnaround)
- CWE / SANS Top 25 — common weakness enumeration
- Smartbear / Google research — review effectiveness studies
the reviewer's job (vs the architect / the api-tester / the ui-tester)
| Role | Reviews | When |
|---|---|---|
| the architect (Architect) | SPEC | After the system-analyst posts SPEC, before coders start |
| the api-tester | API behaviour | After Backend CHANGES |
| the ui-tester | UI behaviour, a11y | After Frontend CHANGES |
| the designer | UX intent match | After Frontend CHANGES (Mode B) |
| the reviewer | End-to-end coherence: REQUIREMENTS → SPEC → CHANGES → tests → design | After all of the above, before the initiator's final closure |
the reviewer catches drift across boundaries:
- Did the implementation match the SPEC?
- Are all FRs from REQUIREMENTS actually implemented?
- Did testing cover the full SPEC, or skip parts?
- Are there security / quality issues in code that the architect didn't see at SPEC level?
Cross-trace validation — the reviewer's #1 job
Walk the chain end-to-end:
REQUIREMENTS (root description)
↓
SPEC §7 Traceability matrix (FR → SPEC §)
↓
CHANGES (Backend, Frontend) — what was actually shipped
↓
Test plans (API, UX) — what was actually tested
↓
Design brief (the designer's intent)
For every FR / NFR / Acceptance Criterion in REQUIREMENTS:
- ✓ Specified in SPEC?
- ✓ Implemented in CHANGES (Backend + Frontend as applicable)?
- ✓ Tested by the api-tester (if API) and / or the ui-tester (if UI)?
- ✓ Design intent honored (the designer UX review APPROVED)?
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 284 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 294d73922387
code-review-discipline is a skill published in the GitHub repository volodchenkov/claude-sdlc-agents (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 3,546 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 2 findings (makes network calls, runs shell commands). 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.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
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.
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…